Somewhere behind ‘the cheque’s in the post’ in the league table of Great Lies comes ‘there’s no such thing as bad publicity.’ And sponsorship had more than its fair share of bad publicity in late 2009 after Tiger Woods, the world’s most bankable sports personality, was revealed to have had a string of affairs.
Sponsorship only really seems to hit the headlines outside the trade press when something goes wrong. And in this case, much of the reporting focused on the amount of money that Tiger would lose if and when his corporate backers pulled out. In some cases the underlying suggestion was clearly that it was mad to spend this kind of money on sponsorship of a single human being - no matter how talented - because… well, because he’s human.
The impression left by such coverage and the inevitable bar room/water cooler discussions was that if a sponsorship could be devalued or discredited by amorous indiscretions - irrespective of how many - it was a fragile building block in any marketing programme. Naturally, the focus on Tiger’s love life left little room for an in depth discussion of deeper issues around sponsorship of sports stars and their continuing value in a changing world.
On the face of it, corporate support for a sporting superstar seems to be a natural fit for certain brands. After all, the lexicons of sports and business are increasingly intertwined with their focus on competition, fitness, focus and winning. The virtues of being first…the best…without equal are cherished by businesses and hiring a sports star who already has those personal brand characteristics may be seen as something of a shortcut to achieving that status in the eyes of the world, if not in reality.
But if the art of sponsorship is to create a channel by which the expose of a sports star leads to the transference of these values from athlete to brand, the downside is clear. If the athlete’s personal brand is damaged in any way - women (or men), booze, drugs, domestic abuse for example - there is no valve on the channel to value transference flowing the other way.
So what lessons can the world of sponsorship learn from Tiger’s troubles? We asked brand and agency experts for their unique perspectives.
David Butler, Loxley & Co: “While we supernaturalise our sports heroes one can think of clear recent examples where our sporting gods of Olympus have fallen down to earth.”
Eelco van der Noll, Global Director, Sports & Entertainment, AB InBev: “The perceived nature of an athlete’s misconduct often dictates the extent of consumer outrage and, by extension, the negative impact on the associated brand or product.”
Keld Strudahl, Marketing Director, Carlsberg: “I am looking for more emphasis on the need for the use of common sense and good judgement rather than a desire to hide behind contracts and the law.”
Kevin Roberts, Editorial director, SportBusiness Group: “Are you less likely to buy a Tag Heuer watch because Tiger Woods can’t keep his pants on? If the answer is yes, I’m sure you are in a minority.”
For the full debate see the latest edition of SportBusiness International published February 1.
