World Cup - sponsor visibilty research from Marketing Magazine

The other day I noted that according to Nielsen research Nike, despite not being a World Cup sponsor, had out performed everyone. The obvious lessons are there for all to read, especially the fact that Nike remain consistent in their investment, leverage the living daylights out of it and follow a religiously creative credo...apart from the odd meltdown as also noted. Now Marketing Magazine have teamed up with Lightspeed Research to examine the returns for official sponsors; http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/News/1009918

It makes fairly grim reading given the multi million Euro cost of World Cup sponsorship; Coke lead the way with 65% recognition (which of course says nothing about 'liked' or 'engaged') whilst Emirates Airline trail with 23%. Perhaps worse still is that brands, which perhaps don't natural enjoy a place at the front of a consumers conscientiousness, such as Visa, were being regularly confused for key competitors like MasterCard. Quite probably that's because MasterCard have their own football led strategy with the Champions League.

The fact that Nike and Coke are prospering whilst the likes of Emirates and Visa are struggling just goes back to some fundamental principles of communication planning and brand association; invest seriously (or not at all), invest consistently and leverage like crazy (but dont just think advertising, instead think of other integrated brand signals). Vitally the success of your sponsorship will depend as much on what you do in the years before the event as within it. And of course, whatever you do, don't just look at your competitors, panic and copy them...find your own space, build your own content, lead your own conversation.