This piece appeared on the UK site Mediatel earlier this week<\/i><\/p>\n
It has been reported in the UK press that Barclays are \u2018likely\u2019 to cancel their sponsorship of football\u2019s Premier League \u2013 an association that goes back 13 years, at a cost of something like \u00a340million a season. A final decision has yet to be taken, we read, but \u2018Board members\u2019 believe that the sponsorship has delivered \u2018zero value\u2019. \u2018The Sunday Telegraph\u2019 reported: \u2018One (senior figure) said that Barclays did not need promotion in the UK as the bank has high street branches around the country and its name is well known. \u201cWe just need to shut up for five years and get on with our job,\u201d the source said\u2019.<\/b><\/p>\n
I have no inside knowledge of this sponsorship (and I\u2019m not a football fan) but it does seem unlikely that it has delivered literally \u2018zero value\u2019. Every report during the season, in every medium references the Barclays Premier League so it would indeed be very strange if after all these years the average punter didn\u2019t associate top level football with Barclays. Whether that is a positive association or not is another matter but surely there must have been an effect of some sort.<\/p>\n
And, if there hasn\u2019t been \u2013 how come it\u2019s taken Barclays 13 years to work that out?<\/p>\n
It would be easy to imagine the analytics behind these anonymous \u2018Board members\u2019 statements. Have they consulted with the best marketing scientists? Have the bank\u2019s numerous media, advertising, PR, sponsorship and research agencies conducted the sort of rigorous and thorough analyses that one would hope they would have, given the level of investment involved? Maybe they have; and maybe there is someone at Barclays beavering away under mounds of spreadsheets to arrive at the \u2018zero value\u2019 conclusion.<\/p>\n
But I would be prepared to bet that that isn\u2019t the case \u2013 or, if it is that these \u2018Board members\u2019 haven\u2019t given any such analyses a second glance even if they\u2019re aware of them, which they almost certainly aren\u2019t. After all, \u2018Barclays don\u2019t need promotion as (their) name is well known\u2019<\/b>.<\/p>\n
As with Barclays\u2019 sponsorship of the so-called Boris bikes scheme in central London (also cancelled), the Premier League association is being portrayed as a vanity project that can be laid at the door of previous managements. A sort-of reverse \u2018Chairman\u2019s wife\u2019 syndrome would seem to be at work \u2013 \u2018we must cancel that as the last lot liked it\u2019. After all, it\u2019s easy to justify saving money \u2013 especially if it\u2019s on what no doubt the Barclays Board would label an unaccountable activity like marketing.<\/p>\n
This all makes our industry look more than a little foolish. Aren\u2019t we supposed to be really good at searching out relevant and appropriately valuable properties for our clients to associate themselves with? Aren\u2019t we all about setting business objectives and KPI\u2019s for the expenditure committed to these projects? Don\u2019t we, as part of our role report back at the end of each contract cycle (indeed almost certainly more frequently) on what\u2019s been achieved, and whether or not whatever it is should be renewed\/repeated? Aren\u2019t we all about business partnerships and adding value (beyond \u2018making the brand well known\u2019)? Or are we really in the post-rationalisation business (\u2018quick; the CEO\u2019s committed us to sponsoring the Premier League; find some data that make this look like the best idea under the sun!\u2019)<\/p>\n
Furthermore, aren\u2019t the client\u2019s marketing teams responsible for keeping the Board informed as to how the organisation\u2019s money is being spent? Shouldn\u2019t everyone, up and down the organisation understand and appreciate the benefit from this expenditure and these associations?<\/p>\n
It would seem the answers to these questions are no, no and no.<\/p>\n
Or, could it perhaps be that the Barclays\u2019 Board couldn\u2019t give a fig for the true value delivered by marketing activities and is more concerned with stopping anything that could be seen as \u2018unjustifiable\u2019 (whatever that means) or too closely associated with a free-spending past.<\/p>\n
Perish the thought!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This piece appeared on the UK site Mediatel earlier this week It has been reported in the UK press that Barclays are \u2018likely\u2019 to cancel their sponsorship of football\u2019s Premier League \u2013 an association that goes back 13 years, at a cost of something like \u00a340million a season. A final decision has yet to be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=280"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":283,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280\/revisions\/283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bjanda.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}