Great article here  on the winning Idol formulas of Ford and Coke from Fast Company.

One of the great examples of this has been played out since last November when Tiger Woods’ life unraveled before the world’s eyes.  Through the accident, the mistresses and porn stars, Tiger remained silent for months, leaving reporters, TV and radio talk hosts and the public at large to dig up more dirt, speculate, and sling mud in all directions.   Isn’t it interesting that once Tiger finally came out and addressed the public and apologized, most people stopped caring about what he had done wrong and went back to talking about Tiger’s golf game?  Whether you thought his presser was completely staged and insincere or not, it did a great job of dousing the flames that had surrounded him for months.  It didn’t stop, but it dissipated greatly.

Could BP make a donation to the wildlife conservancy or announce a new facility for animals affected by the oil spill?

So, now we have BP and this country’s greatest environmental disaster.  Once again, BP’s lack of response magnified the ill will toward the company.  There are so many things the company could have done and said to make Americans feel better about what is a true disaster.  Because, as mentioned above, we tend to respond more to what is said after something bad happens than what actually happens.  Instead, not only did BP have a lack of public response, but when there was a response, it was arrogance from CEO Tony Hayward, now infamously saying that he hoped the oil spill could be stopped “so he could get his life back.”   Where is Tony Hayward as I write this?  Off the coast of England in a yacht race.  Right.  While one body of water is being forever changed as oil is poured into it, Hayward is on a yacht on another body of water, much cleaner.  The response from his PR man Robert Wine….”it’s a well-known event in the British calendar. He’s entitled to private time with his family.”  Perfect.  Translation.  “Just because there’s a little problem in the gulf doesn’t mean he’s going to cancel this favorite yachting event.”  Whether that’s the intended translation or not doesn’t matter. We’re all left to our own interpretation based again on the arrogance and lack of thoughtful response.

Looking at things from a marketing and public relations perspective, we’re putting aside whether or not you think BP is sincere in its desire to clean the spill the way it should be cleaned up.  The one thing we know is that they haven’t responded to it well from a PR perspective and they’re paying the price. 

Here are just a couple of things that BP could have done:

1.  Immediately address and public and apologize for what happened.  The key here being immediately.  Never under estimate the effect of an immediate response.  Almost never can a response come too soon.  Instead, BP tried to minimize the damage and tell us that it wasn’t that bad.

2. Plan for the worst.  People and companies just don’t think the worst will happen and so they don’t plan.  What would happen if we had an explosion and we couldn’t stop oil from spewing into the Gulf of Mexico?  An obvious question for a large operator of oil rigs, but an even more obvious question for a company that has had two previous disasters, including the 2005 Texas refinery explosion that killed 15 people and injured 170.  They knew the worst could happen because it had already happened. 

3.  Act with true sincerity, rather than just financially.  The finances are important, as many are losing their livelihoods.  But when you lose your livelihood, $5,000 isn’t going to help too much.   What else could BP do to alleviate the burden on the people affected by this disaster?  Could they actually be hiring them or creating other opportunities?  Maybe. But certainly, there’s more that could be done.

Again, this is a disaster on the magnitude that’s rarely been seen before.  Extraordinary measures are needed.  Extraordinary leaders are needed.  Extraordinairy compassion is needed.  So far, BP has been anything but extraordinary.

By the way, BP is a $58 million sponsor of the 2012 Olympic Games in London and also a sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Committee.  Might it be time to redirect those dollars?

The new Meadowlands Stadium, site of the 2014 Super Bowl

Think about when most cities are awarded Super Bowl’s and the national excitement that surrounds that decision.  In most cases, there’s maybe a day of buzz and then it’s forgotten by everyone except the host city selected.  With the selection of New York, that changes dramatically, and it’s not just because of the weather.  Sure, the weather is a topic of discussion and certainly stands to be a major factor in the game.  But don’t we expect the top NFL players to be able to play in any condition?  Particularly after a full season in which most teams likely had to play at least one game in some kind of adverse weather conditions, be that cold, rain, snow or even extreme heat in some cases.  It’s football and it’s to be played in whatever conditions Mother Nature has in mind that particular day.  

But now, you’re talking about playing the world’s biggest single-day sports event in the largest media market in the U.S.  For the NFL, the next three and a half years will be a constant stream of publicity and interest in the 2014 game.   The Super Bowl makes its money leading up to the game, and there’s never been a lead up like this.  How fast do you think commercials will be sold out, and at what price per commercial?  Imagine the scramble for real estate, night clubs and any party space that can host any type of related event during Super Bowl Week.  How much merchandise for the 2014 game do you think will be sold in advance?   The NFL will be policing New York City streets for licensing infringement trying to capture of wave of knock-offs on street corners in every borough.  Yes, the 2014 game will provide a Super Side Show like we’ve never seen before. 

For corporate America, it really doesn’t get any better from a sponsorship perspective.  Interest will be at a peak, and hopefully, the current economic funk will be a memory by 2014.   Not that we would suggest free spending just because of the location provided, but there’s no question that corporate exposure can be maximized like never before because of the audience and media platform that this game will provide, combined with the proximity to Madison Avenue and Wall Street that can make so many forms of marketing pay off around a mega event like this.   Given all of the circumstances in place, great strategy and creativity can really pay off and it could payoff for years leading up to the game, not just for the week leading up to the game. How big could a naming rights deal get for the new Meadowlands Stadium?  Talk about biggie-sized!  

So, bring it on.  Cold, snow. sleet, whatever.   This is going to be big in almost every way possible.  For the corporations that seek to get on board early, create a meaningful strategy and execute it with great creativity, there’s an opportunity like never before.

First, let’s review the execution of the TV spot that Papa John’s aired, which showed CEO John Schnatter delivering free pizzas to “behind the scenes” workers the week leading up to the game.  Nothing cute, funny or technically ground-breaking here, but a nice job of using the venue  and aura of the game in a very timely way that also created a big feeling of goodwill at a time in the economy in which viewers are going to look very favorably on a “giving company.”  Viewers were also directed to the company website for a special offer, something most other advertisers failed on. Well done.  There was also an element around Habitat for Humanity as yet another charitable initiative. 

Papa built up to its buy with a sweepstakes for two tickets and accommodations for the game, and related special offers, such as the “Super XL IV,” an offer of any extra-large pizza with four toppings for $11.99, and the “1st and 10,” any large pizza for $10. Consumers also have reason to hope for a high-scoring game. Anyone ordering a large cheese pizza for $9 during the three days after the game will got a free topping for every touchdown scored.  Now, here’s where the win is. Most companies would have stopped right there.  But they did a great job of keeping the campaign going with a radio and TV buy in those three days that reminded people how many TDs were scored and that free toppings were ready and waiting.  It also served as a reminder that Papa was a “Super Bowl’ advertiser, leveraging a fantastic game.

Overall, not flashy, but good execution and follow-up that likely resulted in an actual bump in sales, rather than getting top “votes” as best commercial. 

So, one of the biggest sports stories of recent memory isn’t really a sports story, but rather a story about the sordid personal life of arguably sports biggest worldwide star Tiger Woods.  Everyone knows the details at this point and the sponsorship fallout unfolds each week after each sponsor of Tiger’s tries to time it’s “cancellation announcement” just right.  From Accenture and TAG Heuer to Pepsi/Gatorade and more recently General Motors, they’ve all decided to drop what they at one point likely thought was the safest and smartest sponsorship endorsement bet they could make.  And that’s just it.  It’s a bet.  When considering an endorsement for your brand or product, you do all of the research, review the history, meet the person and then engage the attorneys, marketers and other handlers to leverage your investment to the degree you can or want.

But what now?  What happens when the most respected athlete in the world, in the snap of a finger, becomes the butt of office jokes, graces the cover of dirty-rag tabloids and in all likelihood is not somebody that many respect anymore, at least for his personal choices.  Is there any way that Accenture’s team could have prepared for something like this?  Is there anything that GM could have done to make sure that Tiger someday wouldn’t tarnish their Buick’s?  No.  Really, this goes to the pedestal that most people like to place athletes and top musicians and movie stars.  We so want to believe that they are the people we think they are, and time after time those stars turn out to be even worse than “every day Joe” because they have the income to get themselves into much greater degrees of trouble. 

It’s “official” now that the former “home run kings” Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire were indeed using steroids.  No shock to us anymore because it turns out that likely the majority of players in that era were using some kind of PED.  It’s hard to put ourselves back into that time now because of all of the steroid stories since.  But think about it. It was the most exciting time in baseball imaginable.  These two “great guys” in McGwire and Sosa were engaged in the ultimate baseball battle.  They were the most likable and most marketable gladiators we could imagine.  As it turns out, they weren’t so much as “great guys” as guys who found ways to cheat the system and fool all of us, along with their sponsors.

So, from Tiger to McGwire to Arenas to Kobe and on and on.  The list has become so long that nothing shocks us anymore, despite the fact that it’s still news and boosts ratings.  But what are potential sponsors left to do?  What is the decision-making process now for any company trying to decide whether to use an athlete or entertainer?  There are certain steps that can be taken, and some key questions to be asked in making an endorsement decision.

The first question that we always recommend is, “Is this endorsement the only way we think we can achieve the desired results?”  And that’s really the key question.  In other words, for Buick, was using Tiger the only way they could have achieved thee results they were looking for?  Asking a question like this does a couple of important things.  First, it really forces marketers to explore every possible way in which they can drive results and hopefully prevents laziness.  This makes everyone engaged in the decision think more creatively.  Second, it shines a light back to where it should be, on the desired results.  Why are we using this person?  What do we think using this person can do for our brand and company?  How do we think it will do that?  Hopefully, this takes ego out of the equation as well and erases little talked about reasons that endorsements sometimes get done like, “the chairman really likes him and wants to have dinner with him, golf with him, etc.”    One of the other key questions to ask is of course, “What if?”  Teh conversation could go something like this…..”I know it seems crazy and it would never happen, but what if news came out that Tiger was a philandering cheater and hand girlfriends all of the country and it was sprayed in a very negative way in worldwide headlines?”  Crazy question a year ago, right.  Heck, it’s a crazy question right up to the day we found out Tiger crashed into the fire hydrant for some wierd reason. 

However, there are no crazy questions when it comes to marrying your brand to an endorser.  You don’t know that person, at all.  You know nothing about their personal life or things that they do now or could do in the future.  Don’t assume that you do, and don’t think that you’ll be able to find all the answers to make you feel like you do.  Ultimately, marketers will be foreced to be better marketers.  Ask all the hard questions.  Find the most creative and meaningful ways to achieve desired results.  That’s the job at hand.  If you think that there is no other way to achieve the desired results other than to engage in an endorsement for your brand, then you are placing your bet and hoping for the best.  You may decide that the return you’ll get now will be worth recovering from the worst news possible that could come out about your endorser.  We’re not saying to avoid endorsements completely and forever.  We are saying that brands need to be prepared for the worst because we all now the worst can happen to who we think is the best.

Here’s what happens for the team that’s not playing in their home stadium.  The crowd cheers on their team instead of the visiting team.  When the visiting team has the ball, the home team cheers loud to try to somehow affect the communication and play of the visiting team.  Sometimes they do.  This is called…..the home team advantage.  But please, please stop referring to every loud stadium as a “hostile environment.”  It sounds ridiculous and the “environment” isn’t any different than it always has been.  Fans cheering on their team. Fans yelling and getting loud when the other team has the ball. How very “hostile.”

Ask USF about the “hostile environment” they just went into in Tallahassee where the “hostile” ‘Noles crowd was all dressed in white for a fierce, dare I say. “hostile” whiteout.  Very hostile indeed.  USF 17 FSU 7.  Is there usually a home team advantage?  Of course.  The stadium is full of their fans, just like it always is and always has been.  Is it “hostile?”  No, it’s football fans cheering for their team and against the other team. 

So, let’s stop this “hostile environment” nonsense.  Don’t even get me started on “physicality.”

Beautiful General Motors Stadium?

Crazy right?  Also untrue.  A headline to stir the pot and get your attention?  A little.  But more than that, a headline to bring home a couple of key points at a time when industry leaders on both sides of the sponsorship fence and the public have very strong opinions about the merits of sponsorship, in particular naming rights deals.  It also points to the ongoing debate over measurement.  How does that big naming rights deal get measured and does anyone believe the methodology?

After all, GM is in bankruptcy and just took $50 million from the government to get “back on its feet.”  How could they irresponsibly go spend millions per year just to put their name on a stadium, which gets them no return?  There it is.  Backlash from government officials, the public and auto industry leaders.  This naming rights stuff is exactly the type of irrational spending that can’t be tolerated at “times like this”, right? 

Well, where was the outrage when GM announced just a month ago and only about two months after the announced bankruptcy and government bailout that it would significantly increase ad spending?  Completely outrageous right?  How can they frivolously be airing TV commercials, much less featuring GM’s Bob Lutz as the “star,” at a time when more and more TV viewers are fast-forwarding right through commercials?  How many millions in government money  are going to be throw away on this?   Now, we’re not saying that, but nobody is.  Why? 

Here’s why.  Because “advertising” is accepted by the public and industry leaders don’t question the methodology of measurement, for the most part.   If I the media buyer meet my GRPs, I can show the client that we are making the right moves, right?  Deep down, when everyone has their backs up against the wall and fear drives decisions, the fall back is “what we know to be the truth.”  And the truth for most people in advertising is media numbers, math.  Let’s face it sponsorship execs, most sponsorship deals at some point still run across the desk of a media exec who has to find a way to put that sponsorship through the “evaluation,” er, math equation.  You can argue all day about whose equation is right or which formula is the “right one,” but at the end of the day, that sponsorship has to fit into something that resembles what advertising execs know to be the truth, numbers or eyeballs or listeners or ratings.  Let’s put aside the argument about whether advertising works, right?  If the numbers are met, it works.

Okay, no problem.  We can do that, right?  We can extrapolate the enormous amount of “impressions” that GM will get from its new naming rights deal and in fact we’ll be able to show that the “value” far exceeds the expenditure.  This is the most high-profile naming rights deal ever and because of that, GM will receive somewhere around ” a gazillion” (rounding up here) impressions as a result. 

This is where we sponsorship gurus step in, already a little hot and bothered by all of this “impression” talk, and say…”Stop talking about sponsorship as a means to get impressions!  Sponsorship is not about impressions, it’s much deeper and more meaningful than that.  This is about an integrated marketing platform that can deliver Return On Objective and deliver on real marketing and sales metrics. It can offer one-to-one marketing, product trial, retail promotion, etc, etc., etc.”  Sorry Charlie.  When fear is driving decisions and we can’t afford “backlash”, we can’t choose to believe that all of that “stuff” actually works.  We know the truth to be media numbers and frankly the public is okay with us blasting them with TV commercials, so they don’t care how many millions of their dollars we might spend on it.  (plus, we’ve made a TV star out of the “big guy” and that’s a sure-fire success that crushes any media audit or evaluation).

And so, the debate rages on with everything being throw in from all sides.  So what’s the point?  How do we sponsorship believers bring companies, politicians and maybe even the public to really get them to the point of “believing?”  Could it actually be okay for GM to have its name on the new Cowboys Stadium and could that actually translate into car sales?  We, of course, say yes, absolutely yes.  If done correctly.

Of course, there is a whole  other and deeper discussion here about the forces that actually affect sales.  Was all of the sponsorship that WaMu did a failure because they went bankrupt?  No, it was all of their advertising, of course.  Kidding, naturally.  But there are so many other forces at work in any given company, that things aren’t as black and white as most execs want them to be.  The point is that for media, impressions have driven decisions and it is a completely accepted formula for success.  Not so for sponsorship, right.  It’s not about impressions.  Sure, that’s why the sponsorship industry and brand execs got so giddy when WNBA jerseys became available.  After all, brands had been clamoring for a chance to sponsor WNBA teams all along, right?  Of course not.  They got punch-drunk at their chance to show…..IMPRESSIONS. 

Like it or not, the impressions evaluation and justification is here to stay, perhaps in varying degrees.  As to whether or not it will be “okay” for GM or other U.S. auto companies to spend (much less financial institutions) money on sponsorship in addition to than tried and true advertising, time, the economy and political agenda will tell.

Great Video, no permanent signage

As I watched the ESPN stories on the board in Dallas over the past couple of days, the first thing that struck me was of course the enormity of this new video board.  Absolutely huge and apparently stunningly clear HD video.  But then something struck me that was even more glaring.  There is no permanent signage anywhere on the board, none.  I know from a sponsorship standpoint the thought it likely that sponsors will get their impressions via the video in the form of actual commercials, vinettes and other sponsored features.  All good.  But guess what?  When the highlights are shown the video will likely show game footage or other non-sponsored images.  Now that the scoreboard has become a huge story, get some permanent framing around those screens, or on the sides that will be shown every single time there’s a story an every single time the game cameras point at the boards, which of course is going to be very frequent now.  Fill those corners with some permanent signs and you have instantly found revenue, along with some sponsors that will realize incredible ROI, at least in the form of impressions.  We never advocate sponsorship solely for an impression number, but this can be a tremendous asset as part of an overall marketing plan with the Cowboys.

So, get after it Cowboys.  You have an even bigger gold mine in your new scoreboard than you thought you did.

Here are some observations:

Eight teams are dealing with average attendance of 50% or less, with the Florida Marlins leading the way at an average capacity of 46.9%, which is just over 18,000 per game.  What’s really amazing about this?  That’s a HUGE increase of nearly 17% from last year for the Marlins! 

Which team has seen the biggest percentage drop in attendance?  The AL Central leading Detroit Tigers, down nearly 22% from last year at about 75% average capacity.  The Tigers claw their way to first place in while the auto industry tanks. 

Who’s had the biggest percentage increase?  The Kansas City Royals.  Yes, the Kansas City Royals, with an 18.4% increase, averaging just under 24,000 per game, still at just 62.7% of capacity.  Keep in mind that the Royals got off to a hot start early in the year but have now settled into the basement that they’ve become so familiar with. They finished last year as third worst in terms of percentage of capacity and are likely to be contenders again this year as they fade through the rest of the season.

Lots of Empty Seats at Nationals Park

Remember when nice, new ballparks were going to help attendance for many teams, despite their poor performance n the field?  It’s not happening.  Pirates- still losing ground and averaging under 50% full.  Padres – down nearly 18% at just under 57% full.   The Nationals of course are really hurting, with a drop of nearly 20% and about 57% full on average. Again, none of those teams are going to contend for anything.  More likely, they will get worse, and so will attendance.

So, how does all of this compare with 2008?  It’s down about 6% from this time last year.  If the numbers stay where they are at 71% of capacity, that’s only 2% off from the final numbers of 73% last year.   I think it will end up a bit below the 71% since many teams are going to see their averages slide downward. 

The bigger picture is how the lower numbers translate across the sales channels like merchandise and concessions, which factor into the overall financial well being of each club.  Naturally, sponsorship has been a big issue all across the landscape and it would seem likely that the haves also are benefiting much more than the have nots in that area as well. 

Here are the full numbers (through July 20th), as reported in the Sports Business Journal compiled by Brandon McClung.

Jet Blue is the same Jet Blue that came out of the gate looking great, feeling good and had people rushing to enjoy it’s free DirecTV on every flight.   People loved it.  “This is the only way to fly,” people told me when they flew Jet Blue.  Then, in February of 2007, Jet Blue was brought to its knees by a crippling winter storm in the northeast and cancelled nearly 1,000 flights in a week’s time, while stranding some passengers for 10 hours on planes that sat on the tarmac.  It cost the airline more than $30 million.  Guess what?  It happened yet again in March, but to a lesser extent, with more than 200 flights being cancelled.  How can you be the biggest carrier at JFK, one of the busiest airports in the world, and not be able to handle winter conditions appropriately? 

The storms and associated cancellations, along with sky high oil prices, wiped out the profits Jet Blue had enjoyed, along with severely smearing the goodwill and brand equity that it had built up.   The “big boys” snickered and sneared and breathed a sigh of relief that “the next Southwest” had seen its day.  After all, people were all over national news saying, “I’ll never fly Jet Blue again.”  In the words of Lee Corso…”not so fast my friend.”  It’s one thing to say you’ll never fly Jet Blue again after you’ve been sitting on a plane for 10 hours with crying babies and well. okay crying everybody.  It’s quite another to get on that Delta flight with the crabbiest flight attendant you’ve ever experienced, no DirecTV, no leg room and a delayed flight in perfectly good weather conditions.  Did I mention no DirecTV?   Yeah, sure, you’ll fly on Delta, American, United or one of the other guys and pay more with no DirecTV and crabby patties on the flight when Jet Blue offers a less expensive flight that makes you feel like you’re sitting in your family room watching the ball game and then suddenly you arrive at your destination.  No chance.  They came back.

Jet Blue continues to score the highest among low-cost carriers in JD Powers & Associates annual customer satisfaction awards and profits have returned.   After what would have seemed to be a double knock-out punch or more when you factor in oil prices, Jet Blue has people singing its praises and they’re making money.  When I flew Jet Blue a couple of months ago, it was about the giddiest group of fliers I had ever seen.  People were happy and enjoying themselves, while they were flying!  Can you imagine? 

Why?  Because Jet Blue has a great product with a tremendous unique selling point, or two.  As it turns out, people are happy to forgo awful airline food in exchange for a nice leather seat with more legroom and their very own entertainment machine in the form of DirecTV with all of their favorite channels, movies on demand and music.  Jet Blue, from the beginning, understood how important it was to make people “feel” like they were flying in first class, or better.  Although they suffered a massive setback, the quality of their product and value proposition trumped that big mistake.  The experience they provide is that much better.  The value is that much better. 

The other big part of what Jet Blue did was reimburse flights or offer to rebook those that got cancelled and they now have a Customer Bill of Rights that specifically outlines how customers will be reimbursed for cancellations or delays!  That’s right, if a flight is delayed due to a controllable irregularity (their fault), then customers actually get vouchers ranging from $25 to full round trip fare, depending on the length of the delay.  They addressed their problems, figured out how to avoid them in the future and then also built in something to make the customer “feel good.”  There it is again, making the customer “feel good.”  The key here is that they actually do it. They don’t talk about being “the friendly skies” and then treat you like you’re a huge inconvenience to them.  

Of course, the Jet Blue story is really an offshoot of the Southwest story and model, just taken to a higher level.  Southwest has understood for years that it could offer a less than luxurious flying experience if it made the passengers feel good and gave them unrivaled value.  They consistently do both.  The key for them is consistently.   Southwest is an excellent airline operator that has figured out how to its business effectively and profitably while giving the customer what it wants.  Ultimately, most Americans want a hassle-free flight that they can afford that gets them to their destination on time and alive.  Throw in some cheery flight attendants, a superior rewards program with some free drinks and. . .success!  Another “feel good” story.  Another successful airline that has been rewarded with a World’d Best Reward.

What’s more remarkable about Southwest is that it no longer is a small carrier.  It’s one thing to have cheery employees and operating efficiencies when your a small, lean company like Southwest once was.  Southwest is now number three when it comes to passenger counts for all domestic airlines and yet it still has figured out how to keep passengers in its seats and keep them happy. 

When Southwest and Jet Blue started their airlines, they were contrarian and many bets were placed against them because of it.  Now, they’re leading their industry and being rewarded with profits and numerous rewards.   They have good products backed up by good customer service.  The new CEO recently commented that GM will focus on “customers, cars and culture,” with the customer at the center of the company’s universe.   Interesting what happens when you think of the customer experience and how to make it better.  Even better if your product is great.

See you soon on a Southwest or Jet Blue flight.