<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TonyLankester.com &#187; american idol</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tonylankester.com/tag/american-idol/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tonylankester.com</link>
	<description>Bravery of being out of range</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:28:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why sponsors get it wrong&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.tonylankester.com/why-sponsors-get-it-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.tonylankester.com/why-sponsors-get-it-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:24:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>tony</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american idol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sponsor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sponsorship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tonylankester.com/?p=97</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Adage magazine had an interesting article analysing the three main sponsors of American Idol &#8211; Coke, Cingular and Ford &#8211; in which they assessed the relative impact of their sponsorships. What stood out for me was this insight (emphasis mine): Whereas Coca-Cola and Cingular had created reasons for their existence, Ford had struggled to find [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adage magazine had <a href="http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=132522" target="_blank">an interesting article</a> analysing the three main sponsors of American Idol &#8211; Coke, Cingular and Ford &#8211; in which they assessed the relative impact of their sponsorships. What stood out for me was this insight (emphasis mine):</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Whereas Coca-Cola and Cingular had created reasons for their existence, Ford had struggled to find a solid and justifiable role. What we learned was that <strong>if a brand is part of a story line, our brains will accept the role of the brand and remember its presence</strong>. However, if a brand and its role don&#8217;t support the story line, the opposite will happen: Our brains will simply erase it. That&#8217;s the way we survive and keep from ending up like zombies, considering the average of 2,000 brand messages we are exposed to every day.</em></p></blockquote>
<p><span id="more-97"></span>What resonates for me is something which underscored a gathering of sponsors at the world&#8217;s biggest annual sponsorship conference in Chicago not too long ago &#8211; and that is that sponsors need to embed themselves into entertainment the consumer craves. Not as an add-on or afterthought, but as a genuine &#8220;value adder&#8221; to the entertainment. So when Motorola sponsored Robbie Williams&#8217; recent trip to South Africa, and got a 30-second big screen ad before he came on stage, they got it wrong. They were tackily adding themselves to the experience, rather than become integral to it. That&#8217;s the generous assessment. The cynical one is that they did themselves harm by intruding on the consumer&#8217;s experience. There&#8217;s a delicious word for it &#8211; they &#8220;brandalized&#8221; the event.</p>
<p>Clever sponsors get the difference. They won&#8217;t just write out cheques and sit back to admire their name in lights. They actually engage with what they&#8217;re sponsoring, and look for ways of enhancing the consumer experience. They realise that, at times, it is better to be discrete and low-key; at other times they can go big and bold. It is a small, but important distinction and being able to tell the opportunities apart make the difference between a mature sponsor and an opportunistic one.</p>
<p>Examples of great sponsorships like that abound &#8211; 702&#8242;s Walk the Talk; Pick &#8216;n Pay/Argus Cycle Tour; V-Festival (when it, ahem, actually happens); Old Mutual Encounters; and of course, my personal favourite for obvious reasons, the Standard Bank Young Artist Awards. Those are all sponsors who add value through their involvement &#8211; they don&#8217;t just hijack the event for their own branding purposes. They act with integrity. We need more of that.</p>
<div id="facebook_like"><iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tonylankester.com%2Fwhy-sponsors-get-it-wrong%2F&amp;layout=standard&amp;show_faces=true&amp;width=500&amp;action=like&amp;font=segoe+ui&amp;colorscheme=light&amp;height=80" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:500px; height:80px;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.tonylankester.com/why-sponsors-get-it-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
