http___blog.powersponsorship.com_index.php_2009_07_alcohol-sponsorship-ban-a-red-herring_bg__1.xml
http___blog.powersponsorship.com_index.php_2009_07_.xml
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.1 8.2 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 13.1 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 15.1 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 20.1 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.8 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.8 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 27.1 27.2 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 29.1 29.2 30.1 30.2 30.3 31.1 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 33.1 34.1
A few months ago, our industry had to deal with a bunch of politicians – who clearly know nothing about sponsorship – waffle on about how recipients of TARP funding should not be involved in corporate sponsorship. Преди няколко месеца, нашата индустрия трябваше да се справят с куп политици - които очевидно не знаят нищо за спонсорство - дрънкам глупости за това как на получателите на финансиране от бреза, не трябва да бъдат включени в корпоративното спонсорство. It was short-sighted, populist, and destined to cause more harm than good to the institutions that use sponsorship well. Това е недалновидна, популистки, и са предназначени да причинят повече вреда, отколкото полза на институциите, които използват и спонсорство. Now, we've got Australian politicians – who clearly know nothing about sponsorship – going on about banning alcohol sponsorship of sport. Сега, ние имаме австралийски политици - които очевидно не знаят нищо за спонсорство - става за забрана на алкохол спонсорството на спорта. This isn't the only country where our industry is unfairly under fire from politicians on this subject, and it's not the first time here. Това не е единствената страна, в която нашата индустрия е несправедливо под обстрел от политици по този въпрос, и то не е за първи път тук. The first time around, as I recall, the argument centred around the premise that alcohol sponsorship was contributing to underage drinking. Първият път, като си спомням, аргументът, съсредоточени върху предпоставката, че алкохолът е спонсорство, допринасящи за непълнолетни за пиене. This time around, the argument is about it causing binge drinking. Този път, този довод не е за това причинява склонност към пиене. Once again, the politicians should either stick to what they know, or at the very least, not shoot off their mouths without taking some time to seek out expert opinions and research. За пореден път политиците трябва или да се придържаме към това, което знаят, или най-малкото, не стреля на разстояние от устата им, без да се взема известно време да се търсят експертни становища и научните изследвания. I am not a supporter of binge drinking by any stretch of the imagination, and am supportive of measures to educate and support the community. Аз не съм привърженик на алкохолните гуляи от всеки участък на въображението, и съм подкрепа на мерки за обучение и подкрепа на общността. But when it comes right down to it, this proposed ban on alcohol sponsorship may be hyper-populist, but it is highly unlikely to be effective. Но когато се стигне чак до нея, това предложение за забрана на алкохола спонсорство може да се хипер-популистки, но е много малко вероятно да бъдат ефективни. Why? Защо? Let me count the ways… Нека броят на начините ... Logos on stuff doesn't accomplish anything Слово на неща не се постигне нищо Although there are plenty of companies who will insist that the exposure offered by major logo visibility is an extremely effective way to change the perceptions and behaviours of their target markets, there is reams of research to say it doesn't. Въпреки че има много фирми, които ще настояват, че експозицията, предлагани от големите лого видимостта е изключително ефективен начин за промяна на нагласите и поведението на своите целеви пазари, има reams на изследвания, за да кажа, че не е така. In fact, this research goes back to a 1991 study in the European Journal of Marketing that asserted, among other things, that people who are aware of a sponsorship did not change their perceptions of that brand or their behaviour around that brand, the two things all marketing boils down to. В действителност, това изследване се връща до 1991 учат в европейски вестник "Маркетинг", които твърдят, наред с други неща, че хората, които са наясно за спонсорство не се променя тяхното разбиране на тази марка или поведението си около тази марка, двете неща всичко се свежда до пазара. Many other academic studies have replicated these results, some measuring whether the time someone is exposed to a logo increased the marketing impact (it doesn't) or the love for a team or sport increased the marketing impact (no again). Много други академични изследвания са възпроизвеждани тези резултати, някои измервателни дали път, когато някой е изложено на лого увеличи пазарната въздействие (тя не) или любовта към екип или спорт увеличи пазарната отражение (не се отново). There is a hero worship factor around individual sponsorships – “Tiger Woods uses Nike gear, so I have to use Nike gear” – but this has proven to be a very niche market. Налице е фактор герой поклонение около индивидуални спонсорства - "Тайгър Уудс използва Нике съоръжения, така че трябва да използвате" Найки "механизъм" - но това се оказа много пазарна ниша. If politicians are implying that the visibility of alcohol sponsorship is a major influence on alcohol drinking behaviours – ie, “people see the logo at the game so they drink more” – there is absolutely no research to back up the assertion. Ако политиците се предполага, че видимостта на алкохол спонсорство е голямо влияние върху поведения пиенето на алкохол - т.е., "хората виждат логото на играта, така че те пият повече" - няма абсолютно никакви изследвания, за да направите резервно копие на твърдение. Leverage activities are already well-regulated Лост дейности, които вече са добре регулирани Logos and visibility, on their own, don't accomplish anything meaningful for a brand. Слово и видимостта, на техните собствени, не се постигне нещо значимо за една марка. What does turn sponsorship into a meaningful marketing tool is leverage – what an alcohol brand does with the sponsorship. Какво се върне за спонсорство в смислен маркетингов инструмент е лост - какво алкохол марка е с спонсорство. When we are talking about leveraging an alcohol sponsorship, most of the activities will take place in pubs, at events, in bottle shops, online, and at home. Когато ние говорим за деблокирането на алкохол спонсорство, повечето от дейностите ще се проведе в заведения, по време на срещи, в бутилка магазини, онлайн, и у дома. In-venue activities are usually pretty limited (see below). В помещения дейности обикновено са доста ограничен (вж. по-долу). In general terms, most countries prohibit marketing activities that encourage irresponsible consumption of alcohol. В общи линии, повечето страни забраняват маркетингови дейности, които насърчават безотговорната консумация на алкохол. In Australia, there are laws against people being over-served in licensed venues and events, and there are laws about how alcohol brands can be promoted at those venues and events. В Австралия има закони срещу хора, над обслужен в лицензирани места и събития, и има закони за това как алкохол марки могат да бъдат насърчавани на тези места и събития. There are laws about what alcohol brands can say in their ads and what time of day they can be shown. Има закони за какви марки алкохол може да се каже в своите реклами и по кое време на деня те могат да бъдат показани. Alcohol brands also require an undertaking that the visitor is over legal drinking age before they can enter their website. Алкохол марки също изисква предприятие, което посетителят е над юридически алкохол от непълнолетни, преди те да могат да влязат на тяхната интернет страница. And although it may not be the case worldwide, here in Australia, the “responsible” message is prominent on alcohol websites, packaging, and a lot of promotions and advertising. И въпреки че тя не може да бъде световен случай, тук, в Австралия, "отговорен" Посланието е известен на алкохол уеб сайтове, опаковката, както и много промоции и реклама. Alcohol companies follow these rules for every marketing activity they do – sponsorship-driven or not. Алкохол компании следват тези правила за всяка пазарна дейност те - спонсорство задвижване или не. If there are concerns about the effectiveness of those laws, then tighten the laws! Ако има опасения за ефективността на тези закони, а след това затегнете закони! Don't penalise some marketing activities more than others because they happen to be sponsorship-related. Да не се санкционира някои маркетингови дейности повече от останалите, защото те се случи да бъде спонсорство свързани. Pouring rights and sponsorship are not the same thing Наливане права и спонсорство не са едно и също нещо More often than not the actual beer being poured at a stadium is controlled not by sponsorship of the team, but by a pouring rights contract with the venue. По-често, отколкото бира, а не на реалната се изля на стадиона не се контролира от спонсорство на отбора, а от изливане права договор с мястото. Even if the pouring rights is sponsorship-related, if you ban the sponsorship, the venues will sell the rights a la carte. Дори ако налива права е спонсорство, свързани с това, ако сте забрана на спонсорство, на места ще продава правата, а ла карт. Either way, what this means is that nothing will change when someone goes to buy a drink at the game. Така или иначе, какво означава това е, че нищо няма да се променят, когато някой отива да купя едно питие в играта. Ambush marketing means nothing will change Засада търговия означава нищо няма да се промени Let's just say for a moment that alcohol sponsorship is banned. Нека просто кажем за момент, че алкохолът е забранен за спонсорство. The first thing that will happen is that a giant black hole will open up in the budgets of sporting organisations. Първото нещо, което ще се случи, е, че огромна черна дупка ще се отвори в бюджетите на спортните организации. The second thing that will happen is that alcohol companies will run comprehensive ambush-style campaigns that net them virtually the same results as their previous sponsorship leverage activities. Второто нещо, което ще се случи, е, че алкохолът компании ще работят цялостна засада кампании стил, че нетната им почти същите резултати, както предишните си спонсорски дейности лоста. Ambush marketing is a strategic marketing activity that generates the benefits of a well-leveraged sponsorship, without the actual sponsorship. Засада е стратегически маркетинг маркетингова дейност, която генерира от предимствата на добре ливъридж спонсорство, без действително спонсорство. As long as the ambusher doesn't claim to be a sponsor or break a few rules relating mainly to use of intellectual property or trespassing, it is perfectly legal. Докато ambusher не претендира да бъде спонсор или да наруши няколко правила, свързани главно с използването на интелектуалната собственост или нарушители, то е напълно законна. And when done well, it really does work. И когато направи добре, че наистина работи. So, if alcohol companies are told they can't sponsor, they will simply buy the pouring rights from the venue and mount ambush campaigns in every pub, on-pack, in bottle shops, and online. Така че, ако алкохол компании каза, че не може да спонсорира, те просто ще купят налива права от мястото и монтиране засада кампании във всяка кръчма, по-пакет, в бутилка магазини, както и онлайн. If the IOC and FIFA can't control legal ambush marketing around their events, how does any government think they can control dozens of alcohol companies ambushing hundreds of events? Ако МОК и ФИФА не могат да контролират юридическо засада търговия около своите мероприятия, как всяко правителство, че те могат да контролират десетки алкохол ambushing стотици компании на събитията? And did I mention that a giant black hole would open up in the budgets of sporting organisations? И Споменах ли, че гигантска черна дупка ще отвори в бюджетите на спортните организации? It would. Това би. My two cents' worth Моите двама цента струва There is no question that “socialising” – sometimes to excess – is a factor in some sporting cultures, right from the grassroots to the top. Няма съмнение, че "общуване" - понякога до излишък - е фактор в някои спортни култури, още от самото масово до върха. I can tell you with absolute honesty that in my former, rugby-playing days, there was a lot of socialising throughout the club and I've danced on my share of tables. Мога да ви кажа с абсолютна честност, че в моя бивш, ръгби-играе дни, имаше много общуване целия клуб и съм играл в моя дял таблици. I can also tell you that I didn't need any encouragement from an alcohol sponsor to participate in another round. Също така мога да ви кажа, че аз не се нуждаят от насърчаване на алкохол спонсор за участие в още един кръг. It was the culture of the sport and, frankly, one of the reasons many of us kept our battered bodies in the game well past our primes. Това е култура на спорта и, честно казано, една от причините много от нас ни държат очукан органи в играта и миналото ни прости числа. I'm not picking on rugby, because many, many sporting organisations are exactly the same. Аз не съм бране на ръгби, защото много, много спортни организации, са абсолютно еднакви. We've had alcohol-related incidents with Olympic swimmers, for goodness sake! Ние сме имали инциденти, свързани с употребата на алкохол с олимпийски плувци, за добротата голяма! If you play sport as an adult – as so many of us do (or have) – that culture is very common. Ако играете в спорта като възрастен - като толкова много от нас (или) - че културата е много чести. Banning alcohol sponsorship isn't going to change that culture. Забрана на алкохол спонсорство няма да се промени тази култура. By the same token, we can't be holding alcohol companies responsible for the choices made by individuals. По същата причина, не можем да се холдингови дружества алкохол, отговорен за избора, направен от физически лица. If a group of friends is planning a huge night out and it happens to start at a game, an alcohol sponsorship is unlikely to have any influence on their behaviour. Ако група от приятели планира огромен нощ навън и се случва да започва в игра, спонсорство алкохол е малко вероятно да окаже никакво влияние върху тяхното поведение. Some might say the same would be true for tobacco sponsorship, but I don't think so. Някой може да каже същото ще се отнася и за спонсорството на тютюневи изделия, но аз не мисля така. Alcohol can be consumed in a responsible way and without causing harm to oneself or the community, and virtually all of us would fit into that category virtually all of the time. Алкохолът може да се консумира по отговорен начин и без да причиняват вреда на себе си или на общността, както и почти всички от нас ще се вписват в тази категория, почти през цялото време. The same can't be said for tobacco. Същото не може да се каже за производство на тютюн. There is no level of consumption that isn't harmful to the user and people around them. Не е нивото на консумация, че не е вредно за потребителя и хората около тях. It seems clear that more needs to be done in terms of education around binge drinking. Изглежда ясно, че повече трябва да се направи по отношение на образованието около склонност към пиене. And while over-serving is already a crime, enforcement could probably be improved. И докато по-обслужващи вече е престъпление, изпълнение вероятно биха могли да бъдат подобрени. How? Как? I don't know. Аз не знам. In terms of sports, I do have expertise and I think that any player who is under a professional playing contract and causes harm or disrepute due to binge drinking should not be excused. По отношение на спорта, имам опит и мисля, че всеки играч, който е в процес на професионален договор игра и причинява вреда или лоша репутация поради склонност към пиене не трябва да се извини. From a marketing point of view, bad behaviour diminishes their marketing value. От пазарна гледна точка, лошо поведение намалява тяхното пускане на пазара стойност. From a mother's point of view, I don't want to see binge drinking glamorised. От гледна точка на майката на оглед, аз не искам да видя за пиене, склонност към glamorised. But even with my “mum” hat on, I know it isn'ta team's alcohol sponsor that makes those players behave badly, any more than it was my rugby club's alcohol sponsor that turned me into the occasional wild woman. Но дори и с "майка ми" шапка, знам, че алкохол е спонсор isnt 'a екип, което прави тези играчи се държат лошо, повече, отколкото е било алкохол спонсор ми ръгби клуб, че ми се обърна в случаен дивата жена. Binge drinking is a problem. Алкохолните гуляи е проблем. Alcohol sponsorship is just a convenient scapegoat. Алкохол спонсорство е просто удобна изкупителна жертва. If you liked that post, then try these... Ако ви харесва този пост, след това се опитайте тези ... UK Sport Selling Olympic Athlete IP? Великобритания Спорт Продажба на олимпийски спортист ПР? Not On Не на Ambush marketing: In praise of ambushing up Засада маркетинг: В чест на ambushing нагоре A Hugo Boss ambush? А Hugo Boss засада? Try a Huge-o ego trip! Опитайте с огромен пътуване его-о! Why Ambush Marketing Legislation Will Never Work (and What Will) Защо Засада Маркетинг законодателство ще Никога работа (и какво ще) For maximum impact, forget the event, concentrate on the event experience За максимален ефект, забрави случай, се концентрира върху събитието опит
1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.2 17.3 18.1 18.2 19.1 19.2 20.1 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 23.1 23.2 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 26.1 26.2 26.3 27.1 28.1 28.2
A few months ago, our industry had to deal with a bunch of politicians – who clearly know nothing about sponsorship – waffle on about how recipients of TARP funding should not be involved in corporate sponsorship. It was short-sighted, populist, and destined to cause more harm than good to the institutions that use sponsorship well. Now, we’ve got Australian politicians – who clearly know nothing about sponsorship – going on about banning alcohol sponsorship of sport. This isn’t the only country where our industry is unfairly under fire from politicians on this subject, and it’s not the first time here. The first time around, as I recall, the argument centred around the premise that alcohol sponsorship was contributing to underage drinking. This time around, the argument is about it causing binge drinking. Once again, the politicians should either stick to what they know, or at the very least, not shoot off their mouths without taking some time to seek out expert opinions and research. I am not a supporter of binge drinking by any stretch of the imagination, and am supportive of measures to educate and support the community. But when it comes right down to it, this proposed ban on alcohol sponsorship may be hyper-populist, but it is highly unlikely to be effective. Why? Let me count the ways… Logos on stuff doesn’t accomplish anything Although there are plenty of companies who will insist that the exposure offered by major logo visibility is an extremely effective way to change the perceptions and behaviours of their target markets, there is reams of research to say it doesn’t. In fact, this research goes back to a 1991 study in the European Journal of Marketing that asserted, among other things, that people who are aware of a sponsorship did not change their perceptions of that brand or their behaviour around that brand, the two things all marketing boils down to. Many other academic studies have replicated these results, some measuring whether the time someone is exposed to a logo increased the marketing impact (it doesn’t) or the love for a team or sport increased the marketing impact (no again). There is a hero worship factor around individual sponsorships – “Tiger Woods uses Nike gear, so I have to use Nike gear” – but this has proven to be a very niche market. If politicians are implying that the visibility of alcohol sponsorship is a major influence on alcohol drinking behaviours – ie, “people see the logo at the game so they drink more” – there is absolutely no research to back up the assertion. Leverage activities are already well-regulated Logos and visibility, on their own, don’t accomplish anything meaningful for a brand. What does turn sponsorship into a meaningful marketing tool is leverage – what an alcohol brand does with the sponsorship. When we are talking about leveraging an alcohol sponsorship, most of the activities will take place in pubs, at events, in bottle shops, online, and at home. In-venue activities are usually pretty limited (see below). In general terms, most countries prohibit marketing activities that encourage irresponsible consumption of alcohol. In Australia, there are laws against people being over-served in licensed venues and events, and there are laws about how alcohol brands can be promoted at those venues and events. There are laws about what alcohol brands can say in their ads and what time of day they can be shown. Alcohol brands also require an undertaking that the visitor is over legal drinking age before they can enter their website. And although it may not be the case worldwide, here in Australia, the “responsible” message is prominent on alcohol websites, packaging, and a lot of promotions and advertising. Alcohol companies follow these rules for every marketing activity they do – sponsorship-driven or not. If there are concerns about the effectiveness of those laws, then tighten the laws! Don’t penalise some marketing activities more than others because they happen to be sponsorship-related. Pouring rights and sponsorship are not the same thing More often than not the actual beer being poured at a stadium is controlled not by sponsorship of the team, but by a pouring rights contract with the venue. Even if the pouring rights is sponsorship-related, if you ban the sponsorship, the venues will sell the rights a la carte. Either way, what this means is that nothing will change when someone goes to buy a drink at the game. Ambush marketing means nothing will change Let’s just say for a moment that alcohol sponsorship is banned. The first thing that will happen is that a giant black hole will open up in the budgets of sporting organisations. The second thing that will happen is that alcohol companies will run comprehensive ambush-style campaigns that net them virtually the same results as their previous sponsorship leverage activities. Ambush marketing is a strategic marketing activity that generates the benefits of a well-leveraged sponsorship, without the actual sponsorship. As long as the ambusher doesn’t claim to be a sponsor or break a few rules relating mainly to use of intellectual property or trespassing, it is perfectly legal. And when done well, it really does work. So, if alcohol companies are told they can’t sponsor, they will simply buy the pouring rights from the venue and mount ambush campaigns in every pub, on-pack, in bottle shops, and online. If the IOC and FIFA can’t control legal ambush marketing around their events, how does any government think they can control dozens of alcohol companies ambushing hundreds of events? And did I mention that a giant black hole would open up in the budgets of sporting organisations? It would. My two cents’ worth There is no question that “socialising” – sometimes to excess – is a factor in some sporting cultures, right from the grassroots to the top. I can tell you with absolute honesty that in my former, rugby-playing days, there was a lot of socialising throughout the club and I’ve danced on my share of tables. I can also tell you that I didn’t need any encouragement from an alcohol sponsor to participate in another round. It was the culture of the sport and, frankly, one of the reasons many of us kept our battered bodies in the game well past our primes. I’m not picking on rugby, because many, many sporting organisations are exactly the same. We’ve had alcohol-related incidents with Olympic swimmers, for goodness sake! If you play sport as an adult – as so many of us do (or have) – that culture is very common. Banning alcohol sponsorship isn’t going to change that culture. By the same token, we can’t be holding alcohol companies responsible for the choices made by individuals. If a group of friends is planning a huge night out and it happens to start at a game, an alcohol sponsorship is unlikely to have any influence on their behaviour. Some might say the same would be true for tobacco sponsorship, but I don’t think so. Alcohol can be consumed in a responsible way and without causing harm to oneself or the community, and virtually all of us would fit into that category virtually all of the time. The same can’t be said for tobacco. There is no level of consumption that isn’t harmful to the user and people around them. It seems clear that more needs to be done in terms of education around binge drinking. And while over-serving is already a crime, enforcement could probably be improved. How? I don’t know. In terms of sports, I do have expertise and I think that any player who is under a professional playing contract and causes harm or disrepute due to binge drinking should not be excused. From a marketing point of view, bad behaviour diminishes their marketing value. From a mother’s point of view, I don’t want to see binge drinking glamorised. But even with my “mum” hat on, I know it isn’t a team’s alcohol sponsor that makes those players behave badly, any more than it was my rugby club’s alcohol sponsor that turned me into the occasional wild woman. Binge drinking is a problem. Alcohol sponsorship is just a convenient scapegoat.