am I lovin it . . . ?
Using sponsorship to reach children
My son is 15 months old. He’s small and chubby and thinks I’m the greatest thing in the world (outside of his mum of course). But already I’m worried about the day I have to say no you can’t have a Coke, eat at McDonald’s, chew gum, buy Jelly Babies and…well the list is a long one and you get the point.
As a previous rights seller and now consultant to sponsors, I watch with a particular curiosity at what super brands, specifically those targeting children and by default ME, are going to next throw our way. What exciting, unique, innovative and revolutionary idea will be launched to capture the hearts and minds of us, that great mass known as “the consumer”?
Let’s see: McDonald’s and Pepsi are two of the FA’s main sponsors; Coca-Cola eats and sleeps football; Cadbury’s tried to get our kids active: “we are not going to solve this debate by counting calories – it’s about getting kids active…childhood obesity is a major problem and we’re doing something about it” prophesied Cadbury’s in 2003… but you already know this stuff, in fact, it might even rile you just the tiniest bit…
But is it the sponsor who is at fault? One could argue that’s it’s not as simple as all that.
The opportunity is there thanks to the rights holder, the price is right (presumably, since companies continue to spend squillions aligning their brands with choice properties) and the audience is ripe for the marketing. Perhaps ethically these companies should reconsider their position knowing full well the power their brands have on impressionable minds (read, pester power), but in the first instance, shouldn’t the responsibility lie with the rights holder?
Why? Because the raison d’être for rights holders is purely commercial: promote their product to as many eyeballs as possible as quickly as possible.
To that end, rights holders must consider the impact these associations have on their target audience, and the potential (negative) effect junk food sponsorships have on their own brands and not just the amount of money generated.
“I am comfortable
with the income we receive from these (Coca-Cola and McDonald’s)
sponsors…we use it to fund two Olympic teams for a four-year cycle,”
commented Craig Reedie, chairman of the British Olympic Association, regarding
the £200,000+ a year the BOA receives. What exactly do these sponsorships
say about the BOA’s modus operandi, and what messages do our youngsters
take away?
For example, does Lawrence Dallaglio really need the extra cash that McDonald’s
have thrown his way to star in their most recent ad? And do we really
believe that Lawrence tucks into a “110% beef burger” after
intense training? Hardly, but our kids do, and therein lies the problem.
Rights holders and brands must take such views into account when considering
sponsorship, or risk alienating and upsetting their consumers. There is
a reason why Cadbury’s Get Active programme didn’t work, and
it wasn’t because the kids revolted…
There are however, good examples of sponsorship where brands have targeted the nation’s youngsters and built a solid marketing campaign without upsetting parents. Persil’s “Arts for Schools” campaign demonstrates that the worry of getting a little bit messy should not inhibit a child’s creative expression. Likewise Tesco’s “Computers for Schools” scheme has been tremendously successful over the years, and is backed by parents and teachers alike.
Thankfully, there is some progress, albeit small: In the face of huge opposition, the BBC’s decision to cease providing Coca-Cola with on-air credits for the Top of the Pops and Radio One chart shows, is an important step in acknowledging this problem.
Unless the sponsorship industry accepts that the issue of marketing to
children is fast becoming the next taboo (think tobacco) and regulates
itself sufficiently, it is likely to be subjected to increasing governmental
legislation, not to mention some seriously pissed off parents, like yours
truly…
Matthew Osmon
Director
Redmandarin
