Unfortunately I haven’t been able to watch the Australian Open Tennis these past few days because my set top box is playing up and 7 is the only channel not working.
Still I’ve been following the highs, the lows, and of course, the outfits.
Sponsors like Garnier and Kia pour big money into the tennis. And indeed, when done well, sports and entertainment sponsorships can be a really effective way to connect with consumers, borrow interest, reposition a brand, provoke consideration and all the rest.
The research indicates:
But what does this actually mean? Who cares if people have associated your brand with the tournament unless it translates into something meaningful? Given that these brands are all over the Open, surely this is a 'hygiene factor'?
On the one hand, standardised ROI models mean that there is a shared language around results and comparative success. On the other hand, these results don’t always mean a great deal.
I’ve seen (and probably created) my share of doozies based on dubious spreadsheet calculations and logo sizes.
But standard schmandard I say. Entertainment means a lot of things to a lot of different people. In addition, the way people engage with entertainment (with or without the help of brands) varies wildly.
We might be able to standardize the types of questions asked, but rarely the challenges we face and outcome we're striving for. And never the behavior we want to elicit.
I think I feel another post coming on.
