Rugby World Cup brands O2, Marriott Hotels and Heineken "downplayed the expected commercial losses from England’s early exit from the tournament though sponsorship experts believe the humiliation of the defeat bears a damaging cost of association," according to Seb Joseph of THE DRUM. England’s championship hopes "are over before they really begun and consequently so are the activation strategies for those brands that spent millions of pounds associating themselves to the team." And "while personal emotions will fade, there is a hard cost to advertisers, sponsors and all associated businesses." Tickets for England vs. Uruguay, along with England’s likely knockout games "are flooding back onto the market at a fraction of their original cost, and the same loss in value will be felt across ad revenues." ITV is reportedly set to lose almost £943,820 ($1.4M) per game 'in advertising revenue" now England is out. The fact that "brands choose to be tournament sponsors rather than team sponsors, insulates them against an immediate end to their marketing plans." Stadia Solutions Commercial Dir Andy Clilverd said, "The ‘value’ will always be diminished when England are out of the competition." Rugby World Cup brands "are defiant and have assured that they will continue to sponsor England." Those brands "backed the World Cup buzz to carry on until the final at Twickenham, though advertising plans for some will likely need to be tweaked." The commercial prospects from the tournament "are far brighter globally." Sports marketing agency Fuse Senior Account Dir Mark Huckerby said that the World Cup "remains a global audience draw." Huckerby: "And whilst U.K. pubs, bars and rugby clubs will feel the financial impact of England fans staying at home, the likes of Heineken and Coca-Cola will continue to benefit from their global deals through the duration of the tournament" (THE DRUM, 10/5).
EXIT STRATEGY: Writing for MARKETING MAGAZINE, Arc Sponsorship Account Dir Katie Leach asked what does England's loss "mean for brands?" There are "two types of strategy." First "from those who have placed all their eggs in one basket." Brands taking this approach "include O2, Admiral and Air New Zealand." Then there "are those which have taken the more global approach, working alongside ambassadors from a number of nations or focusing on their rights, such as Beats by Dre, Heineken and Guinness." For some, "this strategy appears to be paying off, while others have had their campaigns knocked into touch alongside the England team." O2, arguably the brand that has carried out the most activity around England, "will be particularly disappointed with the result at the weekend." Its campaign "encouraging fans to support the team to victory has grown in stature across the three weeks, the result of which has seen O2 rise up the ranks in our Brandtasy league table from 11th to currently stand at joint fifth." The brand’s social engagement "has seen a rise of 5%, no doubt aided by the #WearTheRose campaign." As soon as England finishes the match against Uruguay, on Saturday, "we will see the end to this advertising campaign and the roses will be removed from O2’s 377 stores." In contrast, Lucozade adopted the strategy of backing the four home nations with the "for home nations only" campaign, a decision "that now appears to have been a wise one." As long as a home nation team remains in the competition, Lucozade "can continue to create engaging content around ‘banning’ other nations from getting their hands on their product." Top tier worldwide partner Heineken, "which has invested nearly half its total marketing budget into the Rugby World Cup sponsorship, is apparently benefitting from such a large spend." It "has moved up four places in the league, from ninth to fifth over the past three weeks." It "will be interesting to see if brands are capable of capitalising on the gap left by England’s loss." Opportunities on a national level "may now exist for the likes of mobile network 3, the current sponsor of the Ireland team, and for Admiral, which has already run some activation work in support of Wales" (MARKETING MAGAZINE, 10/6).
WHAT NOW? MARKETING MAGAZINE's Tom Bazeley opined "what happens when the feel-good factor is absent?" What "should a sponsor do when the sponsorship property has generated heartache and disappointment?" The "reactions so far are varied." Curtailed "by the need to speak to every man, woman and child from six different continents, the #BringingRugbyHome campaign from Emirates is choosing simply to ignore the host’s exit." Heineken is "to be congratulated on backing its sponsorship with some top talent on show in the Heineken Studio." Such a simple and versatile creative vehicle "is made for providing a rapid yet nuanced response to the England disaster." But "at time of writing, nothing new was being featured." Sport "is as much about losing as it is winning." The "perseverance, tenacity, resilience, grit and sheer bloody mindedness are the qualities we’re all drawn to." Brands "could be there for us in our time of need." Admitting that it has not worked out, "but finding an angle or summoning the spirit to carry on" (MARKETING MAGAZINE, 10/5).
