There are many reasons that the BBC is loved and one of them is the absence of advertising. The ability to skip advertising is a massive upside of DVRs and the internet quickly learnt that its customers didn’t respond especially favourably (often quite the opposite) to ceaseless pop-ups.
When we tune into our favourite events – whether sports, music or arts – we are still deluged with brand advertising. We generally understand the symbiotic relationship between external investment and the quality of our beloved event but surely there is a way for brands to allow us to enjoy our favourite pastimes without plastering their logos all over it?
Consumers these days expect to have a one-to-one relationship with their favourite brands and activities. The days of one-to-many are dying. Most of us now just see branding – like in the example above – as meaningless wallpaper. Why pay for something that people filter out anyway?
Sponsorships that genuinely add value to the customer experience – those with strong strategic fits, targeted and relevant activation and longevity – should be confident enough in their approach to withdraw overt branding that might otherwise detract from the event and allow the target audience to enjoy the experience to the full.
Brands are still being badly advised and still overly reliant on the crutch of media value. This is a bold approach – “strategy” is not a word often enough associated with sponsorship and activation in 2012 is generally still woefully below par – but sponsors need to recognise why their customers actually engage with particular platforms and develop partnerships strong enough to withstand the removal of overt branding. It would certainly challenge the industry to raise the bar and brands might even win a few brownie points from their customers!
Follow me on Twitter @ben_wells1
