Brenda Atkinson
I am no fan of sport. I don’t give a toss for its nation-building bumf, I begrudge it its unreserved corporate support, and it brings out the misanthrope in me. But put Bafana Bafana on the box and I’m all patriotic pride and good humour. I get butch and yell things like, “Why the hell didn’t he make a break down the side?” I slam my fist in the pizza and play aeroplane when the boys score.
I, and others like me, are a good reason why the World Cup might be one of the most valuable media forums for advertisers and their clients. We swell the masses of dedicated sports-lovers, and are besieged by products from Coke to cross-trainers to tyres.
But do we really remember who sponsored what? Can we distinguish between sponsors and advertisers? Do we “eat soccer, sleep soccer and drink Coca-Cola” just because the man tells us to, or do we gulp a glass of milk and thank God for Clover? In other words, do advertising clients benefit from World Cup exposure relative to the amount of money they put in?
The money involved is of course considerable. If you’ve been watching DSTV, you’ll be familiar with the two witty Vodacom spots that have the boys cringing to protect their cellphones as the ball whizzes their way, or hugging and patting each other’s bottoms on the field. To make the ads, Vodacom’s agency Lindsay Smithers despatched a team to Amsterdam to take advantage of Benni McCarthy’s one free day in a scary schedule, and shot both spots within a week.
International travel and production costs aside, buying spots is only an option for the most financially robust of clients. The SABC cleverly structured and sold World Cup packages such that clients had to buy in incrementally: a spot in the quarter- finals, for example, could be bought only if the client had bought a certain number of packages in each prior round. Random spot purchases were not an option.
Sponsorship is the big-boy league, but not all the big boys buy in. Executive Media Director of Herdbuoys-McCann, Alan McClarty, has worked on the Delta Motor Corporation account for eight years, including Opel’s local campaigns. Opel is a major international sponsor of the World Cup in France, but when given their first right of refusal regarding sponsorship of the SABC’s coverage, this client simply refused.
McClarty is offended by the price of sponsorship set by the SABC: “We were asked to pay over R4 million for the privilege,” he explains, “which to us was unacceptable. Some of the top brands in the country have R5 million for their entire brand budget.”
In the end, Opel bought some packages, made a special edition car, and used radio spots to promote the Opel Corsa as the official World Cup car.
McClarty is not convinced about returns on the kind of high-profile, one-off marketing value that World Cup sponsorship promises. He believes that Opel’s decision to go for benefits by association with other local events and media has greater market impact.
“The people who sell these packages come up with things like `added value’,” he says. “But that’s difficult to measure, because the event is saturated by adverts. And what added value do you get if your spot comes up after a match? People have turned the TV off by then, and few of them listen to the commentators droning on.
“Product promotion” McClarty adds, “is about consistency; it’s about how you promote your sponsorship, how much peripheral advertising you do to sustain your market presence.”
As part of the creative team behind Vodacom’s World Cup spots, copywriter Theo Erasmus takes a more balanced view, but agrees that returns are difficult to ascertain, particularly at this early stage. “All clients have different needs and agendas,” says Erasmus. “Given Vodacom’s competition with MTN, they needed a strong, and distinctive, World Cup presence.They went for ads that were less about selling product than building their brand identity as South Africa’s leading cellular network.”
Not surprisingly, the SABC believes it is offering clients a watertight opportunity. Johannie Swanepoel, who manages the station’s sports sponsorship, argues that this World Cup is a particularly good buy: “Transmission is in real time, because there’s no time difference between us and France. This allows us to guarantee an incredibly high viewership.”
Swanepoel adds that feedback from the public and clients alike has been “extremely positive. The broadcast exposure has not been seen as obtrusive by viewers, and sponsors have told us our coverage has been 100% better than previously.”
High prices for clients are justified, she says, by the costs of securing rights to the game, but also by the “South African flavour” added by sending a team of SABC commentators to France.
Most South Africans are still watching the World Cup, and are now dedicated fans of Mexico/Jamaica/ or other Third-World underdogs. Perhaps in a few months we’ll see some of them in their Corsas, on their way to the gym in their Nike Mercurials, slipping in some business via their new cellular network, longing to get home for a can of Castle and another go at the next big game.