The Winter Olympics are in full swing and the organisers are busy implementing draconian “anti-ambush” laws. Too bad they won’t work.

Anti-ambush legislation is mainly about tightening existing IP laws, bolting on a few proximity laws, and trying to control old-school communication channels. It is pedantic to the point of restricting freedom of expression – just ask the people of Vancouver – but still doesn’t stop ambush marketing.

Rather than “we’ve got you covered” platitudes, major events should front up with some home truths. They won’t, however, so I will. There are three major things that a sponsor can do to protect themselves.

Ensure your brand is a natural match

The first thing you need to do, before you commit to any major sponsorship, is to ensure that your brand is a natural match to the sponsorship – better than your competitors. One exercise for determining the fit (and your competitors’) goes like this:

First, make a list of all of your brand’s attributes and values. Describe your brand really thoroughly. Then do the same for your key competitors. Go through the lists and cross out any attributes and values that you share with your competitors, because they don’t count. Now, you’re left with the ways in which you are different. Compare these lists with a list of all of the attributes and values of the event you’re considering to determine which brand is the best match.

If your brand is clearly the best fit, it will be hard work for any of your competitors to create a strategic ambush. On the other hand, if one or more of your competitors is a better natural match than your brand, don’t invest. You will be a sitting duck for ambush. Even if they don’t do any overt ambush activity, people will tend to assume they’re the sponsor. That’s what is referred to as a “natural ambush”.

Think outside the event

Major events cost a lot of money, so it’s easy to think that’s where the value lays and concentrate your leverage on the event itself. Bad idea.

Of course, you should leverage the event itself, but do not ignore the larger event experience. There is a whole world of event experience outside of the major event you’re sponsoring. Just ask the people of Vancouver whether they’re having an event experience. I’ll be having an event experience watching those nuts on luges on TV at the pub. All the chatter in social media is part of the event experience. The real value is in the personal experiences, the stories, of the people you are targeting. That isn’t controlled by the event and laws can’t control it either. The winner in the sponsor vs ambusher competition is the one who leverages the entire event experience.

Add value

The question is then, how do you leverage that entire event experience. Do you try to “own” the experience? Turn your message up to eleven? Again, that’s a bad idea.

First off, it won’t work, because the whole point of the larger experience is that it is owned and controlled by the people, making it the most authentic forum around the event. Disrespect that – try to “own” it – at your own peril.

Instead, concentrate on adding value to that event experience. Improve the not-great stuff and amplify the best stuff, with the goal being to provide small, meaningful benefits that will demonstrate your understanding of your target markets, enhance their experience, and make your brand a welcome and appreciated part of it. If you don’t, an ambusher will.

A good example of this in Vancouver is the Bell Ice Cube, hosted by Bell (Canada). They have created a purpose-built venue that will operate as a free live site and host a live show every afternoon with Olympians. Yes, they will certainly be showcasing their products, but they are also creating an epicentre where people who may not have got tickets to the events can meet Olympians and immerse themselves in the Olympic experience. A number of Games sponsors are doing live sites, some are embarking on great social media campaigns – the key for them, and for you, is to think outside the event.

Ambush prevention really isn’t that tough, but it’s not the law or the event that will save you. In fact, ambush prevention has very little to do with defence and everything to do with your choices, your creativity, and your thoroughness. Sponsor well and there is no room for ambush.

Today is 22 January. The Vancouver Olympics start on 12 February – three weeks from today – and yet, apparently the Vancouver Organizing Committee plan to sell another major sponsorship before the Games, and possibly more. Reports are that they already have a sponsor in mind.

This is just ridiculous. Committing to major sponsorship of an Olympic Games three weeks before it starts is just about the fastest way to waste money I can think of. Okay, maybe Vegas would be faster, but at least you would have the chance of a win. This new sponsor? No way.

When you invest in sponsorship, you are investing in opportunity. It is leverage that provides the results. It is the strategic activity you do with the sponsorship to achieve your goals that will provide the ROI, not the sponsorship itself. Planning and implementing these strategies takes time, and time is exactly what they don’t have.

• What sponsor could integrate this sponsorship across all of their activities – which is what you have to do when you’re spending tens of millions on one event – in three weeks?
• What sponsor could create a media campaign worthy of an Olympic sponsorship and launch it in three weeks? Are appropriate advertising slots even available at this point?
• What sponsor could create a hospitality program of the appropriate calibre in three weeks? Are there any decent hotel rooms or venues still available? Are clients even going to be available? Or have all the big clients been invited to the Games by someone else?
• What sponsor can plan and implement a staff program in three weeks?
• What sponsor could get a social media plan up and running in three weeks? I know social media is fast-moving, but creating something worth paying attention to often isn’t.

No sponsor could do that in three weeks, but that is what it would take to turn this sponsorship from a massive opportunity into any result at all.

So what is driving the interest in sponsoring now, given that sponsorships have been on the market for years? Only three options come to mind: Corporate ego, blinding ignorance, or politics. Of these, only politics could possibly, possibly justify the investment, as I can see where a company that made the investment that put VANOC over their target might be seen favourably by the various levels of Government. That would be an extreme long-shot.

Through all of this, VANOC is being pretty cocky – telling major media that they anticipate signing at least one more sponsor before the Games. Good for them. Unfortunately, not good for the sponsor.

In case you’re interested, here is a list of all of the Worldwide and Vancouver Olympic Sponsors.

It’s early in the year – the time when people wipe the slate, make resolutions, and dedicate themselves to doing better. It’s when people give themselves permission to start over.

What if we applied that thinking to corporate sponsorship? What if sponsors took some time out from dealing with the administration of sponsorship and the improvement of sponsorship, and instead, dedicated themselves to the potential of sponsorship. What if they asked themselves this one question:

If you had the same sponsorship budget, but no commitments,
what would the perfect sponsorship portfolio
for your brand(s) and target markets look like?

I do this for my corporate clients all the time. In its formal iteration, it is called a zero-based audit, and it is often one of the most powerful parts of my recommendation. Strip away the politics, sentiment, history, and headaches, and suddenly my clients can see the true potential of sponsorship. More often than not, a senior decision maker will say, “now, we know what our goal is”. Bingo.

That’s your challenge. Whether your budget is $150,000 or $5 million or $50 million, leave the reality of your portfolio behind, work with your team, and ask yourselves these questions:

• What would you sponsor, if you could sponsor anything?
• At what level? What unique benefits would you want?
• Would you create and own any events or programs?
• Would you create any umbrella programs?
• How would you leverage your investments to meet brand needs?
• How would you integrate your investments across your other marketing and business activities?
• How would you involve your staff and customers in a meaningful way? Create a “win” for the people who are most critical to your success? Make them the heroes?

The process is creative and strategic and fun, but the real moment of truth comes when you compare what you could be doing with your money with what you are doing with your money. Suddenly, settling for improving mediocre sponsorships will seem a lot less appealing, and the ambitious goal of an entire portfolio that operates at peak performance will seem a lot more attainable. Mark my words.

I will say that whether you’re doing a straight audit or a zero-based audit, selling them internally can be a political minefield. Everyone has their pet projects and agendas, and none of them want to hear that their favourite is not the bees knees. You’ve really got two options:

Plan A is to enlist a senior executive (ideally, your head of marketing) in the process, as they will be able to navigate the c-level politics better than you will. If you’ve got that support and a team with even a modicum of creativity, you’re all set.

Plan B is to enlist outside help. For larger, more decentralised companies, as well as those with intractable politics, you are probably better off involving a consultant. A good consultant will bring a lot of expertise and ideas to the table, but one of the biggest bonuses is that some companies trust and accept the objective viewpoint of an outsider more than someone internal. They can deliver unpopular news, out-of-the-box solutions, and by virtue of their role, can present a reinvention on a scale that may be hard to accept if it came from inside.

Zero-based audit – Think clean slate. Think big. You’ll thank me.

Following on from Controversy Central #1: Tiger Loses (Almost) Everyone, this is an interesting case of an ad created to leverage a sponsorship in one region being a disaster in another. Here’s the setup:

Here in Australia, it’s summer, and in summer, our major sport is cricket. This season, we’ve played international series at home against the West Indies and Pakistan. KFC, a long-time sponsor of Australia Cricket, created a series of TV ads, called “Cricket Survival Guide”. On one of them, you have a lone Australian cricket supporter, dressed in the Australian green and gold, sitting amongst the opposition. In this case, it was West Indians wearing red and green and enthusiastically supporting their team, as cricket supporters do. Now that you have the context, here is the ad:

Why was I concerned about the context? Because the ad was made specifically for the Australian audience, referring to a very specific situation, and it made perfect sense down here. When the ad hit YouTube, however, a vocal minority of mainly Americans without benefit of context – or in some forums, not caring about the context – decided to call “racism”. Why is there only one white guy? Why is everyone else black? Why are the black people the only ones acting up? Why does he think fried chicken will fix everything? Why is it an “uncomfortable situation”?

I grew up in America and am a dual citizen, so I do understand the angle. And clearly, if this was an American ad depicting one white American and a bunch of black Americans, it would be terribly offensive. But it’s not. It’s about one Aussie cricket supporter who somehow got a seat in the middle of the West Indian supporters, with no hidden agenda with the chicken. There is no racial sensitivity about fried chicken in Australia or the West Indies – it’s just chicken.

Okay, I’m done defending the ad and ready to talk about the bigger picture…

If a brand is to connect with a target market, you do it by reflecting and respecting the passions, interests, and humour of that culture. You talk about what’s happening and you speak the language, which means it may not make a lot of sense or mean the same thing somewhere else. Context is everything.

This is a global marketplace, but have we really got to the point where every ad and every sponsorship leverage strategy, has to be checked for cultural sensitivities – about race or otherwise – around the world? Do we really have to cater to global sensitivities for regional ads, even though the rest of the world would have to go looking for those ads on the internet in order to be offended by them? Imagine the ads, and how boring they would be.

It’s a slippery, dangerous slope. Would McDonald’s be able to show a burger in an ad, because it may offend some cultures by glorifying the eating of meat? Bikinis and sexual innuendo would be out, as there are any number of cultures that would consider that that to be a case of egregious sexual permissiveness. None of that will happen, of course, so why does an Australian ad about making friends with a West Indian crowd at a cricket match by sharing chicken with them have to conform to American sensitivities?

Apparently, it does, because in an outstanding display of cowardice, KFC pulled the ad from Australian television. It’s an ugly precedent. Very ugly.

What a month in sponsorship controversy! I don’t bill myself as any kind of news service, but every so often, what’s making news just plain needs addressing.

Controversy #1 (and still champion) is the Amazing, Vanishing Tiger Woods and his Amazing, Vanishing Sponsors. As I predicted in my previous blog, “Sponsors in a Tiger Trap”, at last count, he has lost almost all of his major sponsors, except Nike and EA.

In recent days, the three most interesting parts of the sponsorship story are these:

1. TAG Heuer is waffling

It looked like they were going to go, but now it looks like they will stay with Wood with a reduced presence. I’m not sure this is a good idea. Unlike brands appealing directly to golfers (like EA and Nike), it puts them in a position of endorsing Woods as a person. According to the Tag Heuer website:

“With his personality and his results, he is a perfect example of  prestige and performance which are so important to TAG Heuer.”

“Prestige” is not a trait I would currently associate with Woods. And I’m thinking his personality is leaning more toward “sleazy, narcissistic jerk”.

From a very personal perspective, my husband asked if I would like a TAG for our 10^th anniversary. I have always wanted one, but before choosing the specific watch, I saw the reports that TAG were sticking with Woods. I’m not stupid – I know that didn’t change the watch – but for me, it did change the brand. I found myself reconsidering, trawling through the other brands at Duty Free and I still haven’t decided on a watch.

2. “The Decision Was Already Made”

Isn’t it interesting how many of the sponsors who have exited their sponsorships of Woods have claimed, “the decision was made prior to the November accident”?

So apparently, if this scandal would not have happened, Woods would have seen tens of millions of sponsorship dollars walk out the door simultaneously, while he was at the top of his game. I don’t think so. But the number of his former sponsors using this line is bordering on the ridiculous.

3. The $12 Billion Loss… Supposedly

According to an economics professor from US Davis, Woods’ sponsors saw their market capitalisation drop by about US $12 billion after the incident. I’m not an economist, but I do have a couple of observations.

First off, many of the numbers just don’t make sense. For instance, Gillette sponsored Woods, but the stock price shifts were done on mega-parent company, P&G. And Accenture was the company most directly tied with Woods, yet their stock price didn’t drop.

Second, According to a Journal of Advertising Research study in 2002, the market capitalisation rises seen upon Olympic TOP Sponsorship announcements and marquee sportsperson endorsement averaged around 1.5%. Not bad, but one of the conclusions of the study was that these rises were temporary. So, let’s just say for a moment that the scandal did drop the market cap for Woods’ sponsors – although I’m not really buying the whole “causal” thing – common sense would dictate that this drop would also be temporary.

Okay, I’ll stop talking about Tiger Woods. I’m as tired of him as you are.