Western companies are wary of brand transference as the result of associating with FIFA, Russia.GETTY IMAGES
The World Cup is "undoubtedly one of the world's most-watched sporting events, comparable only to the Olympics in terms of global audience," according to Andrew Hughes of the London INDEPENDENT. And yet this year's tournament "has so far felt somewhat subdued from a marketing and advertising standpoint." Though the big brands like Nike, adidas and Visa have all launched their World Cup ads, there have been "just a few viral campaigns on social media." And "on the guerrilla marketing front in Australia," there has "only been a clever Caltex campaign following the inclusion of veteran Tim Cahill in the Socceroos team." This "low commercial visibility" is supported by FIFA's facts: "while the two top tiers of sponsorships for the 2018 World Cup were nearly all filled, the third tier (regional partnerships) still has openings that are likely to remain unsold." Only in mid-June did FIFA secure its first African third-tier sponsor. Altogether, "just 20 of the 34 commercial spots for the World Cup have been sold." This will "undoubtedly" cost FIFA "hundreds of million of dollars in lost revenue." So, why is this World Cup not experiencing "a commercial bonanza?" The "reason is simple: brand transference." This marketing theory "asserts that a consumer's knowledge or feeling around a brand -- be it a place, person or product -- will transfer to the brand" with which it is linked in an advertisement or marketing campaign. In this case, it is the connection with tainted "brands" such as Russia and FIFA "that has some Western companies cautious ahead of the World Cup" (INDEPENDENT, 6/18).
