Blog

Photo courtesy of Coolermag.com; permission being requested

Nike should have pulled off a marketing and brand coup with its Human Race: one week after the close of the Beijing Olympic Games, 24 international cities, each hosting a 10k race, runners competing together against the other cities to be the fastest in the world. Frank Vial wrote earlier in this forum about how the Human Race aimed to bring the Olympic spirit home and translate that goodwill into Nike sales.

But in this neighborhood, the actual race had little enjoyment and could potentially become a brand emergency for Nike among serious runners. I ran the Human Race in London, and my own personal experience left me wondering how Nike let such a smart idea go so wrong.

Nike’s Human Race was announced here in London in mid-June with great fanfare: bus sides, full back-page newspaper and magazine ads, web banners; you name it, they were plastered with inspiring, team-building slogans like “The day I raced the world” and “Runners of London Unite.” The race was to be held in the home of English football, the new Wembley Stadium in northwest London. Though situated miles away from central London, it had enough resonance to attract patriotic runners from all over southeast England. Combined with a concert featuring Moby, the race seemed like a “must-do” for runners of all experience levels.

Communication about the race from Nike was spotty all summer. Most of the emails I received encouraged me to join Nike+, gear up at Niketown, download playlists of music for my training through iTunes, and to be on the lookout for more emails and text messages from Nike. It was clear from its announcement that this race was aimed at novice runners, but as a novice runner myself I would have appreciated more constructive information from Nike such as tips on pre-race nutrition, pacing, and stretching, instead of being directed to buying Nike stuff. Most notably, the email blasts lacked critical information like race time, directions to the stadium, and the amenities that would be provided to runners.

A race pack was given to each entrant, but it had to be picked up from the Niketown in central London—a bit of a hassle for runners who didn’t live or work in London. The pack included a red shirt with yellow printing on it that screamed Beijing; it was the most blatant Nike touchpoint that referenced the Olympics. Also in the pack were a wristband, shoe sensor, entry ticket, and coupon—10% off of £150 spent in Niketown. Again, a lot of “Nike,” but no definitive information about schedules, the race course, or what to expect.

The day of the race arrived cold and rainy, and STILL no information from Nike about the race. At Wembley the mood matched the weather: security guards treated runners like football hooligans, denying entry, forcing us to move out of seats. A huge rock concert was underway and the warm-up band wanted runners to jump up and down and make some noise. The only food available was stadium snacks like pizza for sale in the concession booths.

British running legends Seb Coe and Paula Radcliffe were on hand to encourage us runners, but by the time they were introduced to the crowd everyone was grumbling, complaining, and jumping in place to stay warm. During breaks in the “entertainment,” runs in other cities were showcased. Paris, Munich, Istanbul, and Shanghai all looked sunny and cheery, winding through tree- and monument-lined city streets with plenty of spectators! I soon found out that the London race was, for some reason, completely the opposite.

Nearly two hours after runners were required to be in Wembley Stadium, the first wave took off. A few minutes later, my wave took off. The course was clearly not planned by runners, and if it was, then Nike might want to look for new running consultants. It was nearly dark and pouring rain when we set off, and the course was tight, narrow, over-crowded, lit only by streetlights. There was only one water station along the whole route, the course had potholes and uneven surfaces for the majority of the 10k, and several tunnels had no lighting whatsoever.

Wembley Stadium is located in a very industrial neighborhood of northwest London; the course looped around an Ikea, a Tesco supermarket, a gas station, carpet wholesalers, and warehouses, and along a highway—a big contrast from Paris’ leafy streets and statues. Spectators were only allowed near the end of the race, and it made a huge difference to see people cheering along the way. Why didn’t we have encouragement for the first 8.5km?

Once over the finish line, Nike representatives handed out energy drinks and commemorative longsleeve shirts—and that was it. No directions back to the Underground trains, no congratulations, no medals, nothing. Nike ceased to exist after I slowed to a walk. I would have enjoyed a concert then, as a way to celebrate my first race, but it was so late by the time I picked up my bag that I just wanted to get home.

The day after the race saw running message boards on forums like Runners World blowing up with scathing reviews of the race and Nike in particular. Many posted that they would never run another Nike race again, and drew bewildered comparisons to previous, more successful runs. I share the sentiments that this was a Nike party with a race afterwards and am a bit hurt that the London race seemed so ill-planned and miserable compared to how other cities’ races looked. The whole event really felt more like a marketing stunt for a lifestyle brand rather than a quality race hosted by an athletic company.

As a runner, I felt like I was let down by a brand that I always thought stood for athletes—knew what they needed, how they performed, and how to help them do their best. As someone who might have wanted a connection to the Olympic Games, the only thing that made me feel like an Olympian was the fact that my shirt (and everyone else’s) was red and yellow. As a marketing person, I felt like I witnessed a huge brand trainwreck: a brand making a promise to its core audience and breaking it, big time.
 

So with the Olympics passed, I need to answer the question I posed at the start of the Games: What does the Olympics bring to NBC—beyond the ratings—to the brand?

To be sure, NBC gained great ratings, averaging 23.3 million viewers per day, the “sort of ratings victory a network dreams of” according to the Interational Herald Tribune.

But qualitatively, as a brand, NBC gained incredible brand cred in covering the Olympics for these reasons:

1. Smart, consumer-needs based coverage: shrewdly working the time zones for more live TV coverage, creative use of graphics to make even the wet, bathing-capped, “anonymous athletes” of swimming recognized in their lanes, and even more streams of live coverage online at NBCOlympics.com
2. Exposure to subbrand Bob Costas: always keeping it real, be it a tete-a-tete with gymnastics expert Bela or his play-by-play boyish wonderment of the spectacle of the opening ceremonies
3. Cultural exchange: bringing in a Chinese culture expert to explain the goings-on and themes in the magnificent opening ceremony added tremendous value
4. Balance: not just covering the U.S., but celebrating powerhouses and star athletes in other countries
5. “Today” news cred: reminded me that “Today” is, after all, a news program even though as a familar, friendly voice in my home every morning, I sometimes forget. Having Matt at the opening ceremonies and seeing Meredith and Ann dressed in Asian inspired-dress was on brand, Beijing style.

The NBC brand emerges as professional, savvy, expert, always approachable, curious, genuine—never taking itself too seriously (Meredith, Al, Ann, and Matt scaling the Great Wall?!?).

NBC made me feel like I was there, at the Olympics, in Beijing. In being a true brand correspondent to the Olympics, NBC now has my trust that it will bring that same brand essence to anything.

With the Olympics wrapped, I tuned into NBC for the Democratic Convention last night, and I think I’ll be taking a look at their fall previews later this month, for a change. They won me.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/26/arts/Nielsens.php

http://www.nbcolympics.com/

Brand China—for many in the West just white space on the perceptual map—has been filled with fresh meaning.

Unlike the Olympics in Athens or Sydney (which were held in cities and among cultures that many of us in the West are already familiar with), the Beijing Games filled a perceptual void in the hearts and minds of many. This void existed because not many of us in the West have had the kind of first-hand experiences with China that breed familiarity and relevance.

As a result, this “filling of the void” will have a significant long-term impact on the overall nation brand of China. And while it may be too early to track the impact, I am sure that going forward we’ll see a spike in Brand China’s differentiation, energy, and personal relevance.

Throughout the Olympics, Brand China presented itself to the world as the country that can one day, again, become the center of the world—true to its name (the “Middle Kingdom”).

For many of us, the Olympics also dispelled any residual misperceptions about exactly where in the development process China is toward becoming a superpower. (I found that the over-the-top splendor of the Beijing closing ceremonies made London’s 8-minute preview look both charmingly “old-world” and also seriously outdated.)

But while China perfectly stage-managed the Games and maintained stability throughout, media attention not only focused on gold medals, but also tangentially covered granny protests, smog, a little lip-syncing girl, and virtual fireworks among other distracting nuisances.

As Monica mentioned in her blog, the long-term success of Brand China can only be built if the state and private sectors apply the brand management lessons learned during the Olympics.

One important lesson: although you can stage-manage a brand to perfection, you can’t completely control the way people experience and perceive a brand. As a result, you have to be prepared to build transparency and authenticity into how you manage your nation brand, and that, I think, remains one of the stretch goals for Brand China going forward.

But if China is able to do this, I believe that both the (Desti)Nation Brand China and “Made in China” will be experienced by the rest of the world as they are meant to be.
 

Photos courtesy of Sadat/Xinhua (top); He Junchang/Xinhua

Sometimes actions have consequences you don’t see coming—consequences that have long lasting effects. Before the Olympic games in Beijing, the Chinese government, determined to have a picture perfect two weeks, instituted a series of actions to ensure the cleanest air possible in Beijing. Some factories stopped production for a few weeks. Beijing drivers learned to drive their cars only every other day.

Although not apparent in the first few days of the Olympics, as each day wore on, the air conditions seemed to get better and better. Marathoners didn’t pass out. The world watching on TV got to see blue skies. Commentators marveled that the worst had not come to pass. Even Beijing residents noticed the difference.

But here’s the rub.

Turns out recent reports from China indicate that Beijing residents are very happy with their new air quality and want it to continue now that the Games are over. Unlike in many countries (the U.S. and others), in China there was a two-week object lesson in the implications of manufacturing and driving and growth on the environment—measured simply by how blue the sky was.

There was talk before the Games of these being the “Green Olympics.” Rather than through some enormous marketing effort, it seems China’s desire to make a good impression on the world through their actions has also made a good impression on the locals.

As China works to balance continued growth with a desire for more blue skies, what started as a marketing effort may have a much further reaching impact.

I’m setting myself a blogging challenge. Write something that’s blog-worthy and Landor-relevant but really just an excuse to talk about Great Britain’s (GB) extraordinary achievement in the Olympics. Our The final tally, for those who weren’t keeping track, was 19 gold, 13 silver, and 15 bronze, placing Great Britain fourth in the medals table. 

How extraordinary is that? Dubbed “The Great Haul of China” by the British press, it’s the best that GB has done since 1908 and is way, way better than anything in recent years. The low point was the 1996 Atlanta Games where Britain was 36th in the medals table and only won one gold medal, putting it in the company of such Olympic powerhouses as Belarus, Armenia, and Burundi.

It’s a remarkable turnaround, and as I was reading some of the articles about this (and here’s the relevant bit), it seemed to me that this challenge and the way GB approached it has lessons with broader application:

1) Darkest days: Sometimes it takes total collapse to force organizations to make tough changes. So it was with GB’s Olympic program. The beginning of GB’s turnaround started from its darkest hour in Atlanta with a thorough examination by the sports federations into what had gone wrong and what could be done about it.

2) Imitation: Back in 1976, Australia had its own Olympics debacle and developed its own revival plan that was a huge success. The British studied this success and copied elements of it, including setting up a new government agency—U.K. Sport—to coordinate the allocation of funds.

3) Focus: One of the key conclusions from looking at what was wrong and what others were doing right was that it would be more productive to focus resources on potential medal winners rather than spreading the limited amount of money available on everyone. Such an elitist approach was a break from the traditional way Britain had approached sports, but the “Atlanta-disasta” helped force through this change.

4) Early wins: The early implementation of a more focused approach brought some success. In the Sydney and Athens games, the British team made headway and started moving back up the table to around 10th, the position that GB had usually held.

5) Commitment: When London won the right to stage the 2012 Olympics, the ante was upped considerably. Suddenly the Olympics was the center of attention and the top of everyone’s mind.

6) Stretch goals: Soon after, the British Olympic Association (BOA) set a stretch goal to finish fourth at the London Games. Some criticized the BOA for being so aggressive and setting itself up for failure. But, in fact, GB has already achieved this goal—four years early. 

7) Funding: The prospect of staging the 2012 Games opened the funding spigots and the government increased support. Clearly this extra money has been important. It has provided equipment and facilities that British athletes have never had before. But without the earlier creation of U.K. Sport and the development of an operating framework, this could have been an unfortunate example of throwing money at a problem without fixing it.

8) Opportunity identification: As part of its effort to focus, Britain has concentrated its investment in sports where there’s no dominant player (but still lots of medals available). One of the main beneficiaries has been British cycling. Matt Slater, writing for BBC Sport, describes British Cycling as being so cash-strapped in the 90s that cyclists had to borrow tracksuits and pay their own way to international events. Only ten years later, GB has become the top cycling nation, winning 14 medals in Beijing. 

9) A winning system: Back in 1992, Chris Boardman won Britain’s first cycling gold medal since 1920. But this was a one-off hit and not a signal of a cycling renaissance. His trainer, Peter Keen, talking to Matt Slater, said the approach back then was: “Classic British alpinism...leave no ropes, leave no trail. There was no system so there was no legacy.” Keen implemented a system, setting goals and creating a “leaner, meaner machine,” based both on focusing on the best prospects and establishing a process that could be replicated over and over.

10) Centers of excellence: All the elite British cycling athletes are based at one location—the Manchester velodrome. This has allowed the team to bring in the best equipment and training regimens under one roof. It’s efficient from an investment perspective and provides opportunities for the sharing of best practices and development of a strong team culture.

So now, as the Olympics heads to London (on the double decker bus featured in the Bejing closing ceremony) things have never looked brighter for British Olympic sports. Perhaps there’s time, in the next four years, for Britain to solve its weather problem as well?

Links:
1) How GB cycling went from tragic to magic: Matt Slater (BBC Sport)
2) What a weekend! But why stop there?  Matt Slater (BBC Sport Olympics Blog)

Image courtesy of www.beijing2008.cn, permission being requested

I expected the most interesting part of the Beijing Brand Battle to be played out between official Olympics sponsor Adidas and non-sponsor, ambush marketer Nike.

I was wrong.

If there were a gold medal for ambush branding, Li Ning, China’s largest sportswear brand, would have won it.

Although the Li Ning company, shortly before the Games, had to pull out of a deal with China’s national TV station CCTV that would have outfitted presenters with its gear, its ambush of the opening ceremonies—by having its founder, executive director, and former Chinese Olympic athlete Li Ning soar above the stadium to light the Olympic torch—has proven to have far more impact.

During his three minute flight, media commentators had ample time to talk about this former Olympic hero and, in the same breath, mention China’s biggest sportswear brand dozens of times. And, by the way, on his flight Li Ning was wearing the required Adidas shirt but his own Li Ning shoes!

Not only did Li Ning company shares go up about 6% in the days following (converting the Chinese national pride he generated into money), but also Li Ning also created immediate, global consumer awareness for its brand, prepping the ground for its ambitious global expansion plans.

In short, Adidas paid $50 million to be an official Olympics sponsor. Li Ning made $30 million on share price alone, and gained perhaps another $20 million worth of global media exposure, all in three short minutes.

This was a very elegant play by Li Ning, and one deserving of the ambush branding gold medal.

Together with all the other lessons learned about official Olympic sponsorship, this strategy is certain to redefine the terms sponsorship and ambush branding for the upcoming London and Vancouver Games.

Image courtesy of Cameron Spencer

We have seen a range of really cool ambush strategies over the past few weeks.

I just came across an article, which delivers one example of a brand that probably also had some kind of sneaky brand attack in mind. One, which it probably got wrong.

Ralph Lauren, which equipped the U.S. team with its Opening Ceremony uniforms, was attacked quite fiercely for its obtrusive logos. This news is already a few days old as it stems from the opening of the Games, but I felt it would be worth sharing in this forum.

Of course, Ralph Lauren is not a typical guerilla or ambush marketer brand, so it can be forgiven for having gotten it all wrong. I quite enjoyed the satire in the American Politics Journal, which elaborates on Ralph Lauren’s faux-pas with a nicely photoshopped image blowing up the logo even larger.

From a branding perspective, it certainly must be said that while visibility is important, size does not always matter; often the more considered and qualitative appearance makes the greater difference.

The Olympics are now well into their second week. Public attention is entirely dominated by star athletes and the medal race. In the midst of such joy and excitement, anyone who attempts the “Post Games” discussion with a question mark should expect to receive a gold medal in unpopularity. But one does wonder if China can sustain its newly found brand power when the curtain falls next week.

Undoubtedly, the Beijing Olympics are the most successful (and the most lavish) launch party for Brand China.

The world is convinced of China’s ability to reach world-class heights in technology, architecture, and business skills. The Middle Kingdom has arrived as an invincible force in sports and in organization. At home, the Games bring the biggest ever sense of accomplishment to the people. The nation has never felt more confident, patriotic, cohesive, and proud.

But underneath the triumph and the glory, Brand China is as fragile as baby skin. Economic miracles are not going to dim political, human rights, and environmental issues. Even with those put aside, can Brand China afford to be ensnarled in more controversies of contaminated food and toxic toys? Can it maintain its cutting-edge image when it applies so many of its technology and craftsmanship skills on copies and counterfeits?

Perhaps the most important question is, how determined is the nation to protect and nurture its brand?

Remember how state determination and national pride brought Japan and Korea out of a similar shabby image? If China can mobilize the national resources to achieve not only the unsurpassable Beijing event but also its state-of-the-art infrastructure in three years, it can certainly champion its brand strength and stature.

It was broadcast that China will surpass the U.S. as the world’s leading manufacturing country by next year. Brand China will be exposed to even more intensive scrutiny.

The game is not over.

Courtesy: Ray Ally, Landor Associates

With the Olympics well into its second week, the race among sporting brands is nearing the final bend. Li Ning’s spectacular, ultimate ambush of the opening ceremony is now a distant memory, and the battle is really only between the two giants: Nike and Adidas.

Nike, which has dressed the Chinese athletes, and Adidas, the official Olympics sponsor, are currently neck and neck. But it looks to me like things are changing. Adidas could be striding ahead by its association with the many gold-winning Chinese athletes being photographed on Olympic podiums.

China’s ambition to win the most gold medals on its home turf has been no secret for years. They have been planning this since they won the right to host the games back in 2001. However, I don’t expect they believed they would be doing quite so well.

To support its positioning, Adidas erected a number of Chinese medal counters around the city. The counters update electronically every time China gets a medal. These are located at prime shopping locations around the city and outside its flagship store in Sanlitun, Beijing.

Interest in China’s medal tally is so important to Beijingers that many office buildings have their own home-made medal counters in their lobbies, updated by hand by the reception staff. Talk at lunchtime and around the office water cooler is always about "how many gold medals do we have now?"

Last weekend I went to the largest Adidas store in the world, which just happens to be in Beijing. It is a four floor, 3,000 sqm brand centre which, for the first time, has all the Adidas divisions under one roof: sport performance, sport style, originals, and Y-3.

The place was so packed that I could hardly get inside as locals and tourists alike bought up everything Olympic in sight. Replica China shirts and tracksuits worn by the Chinese athletes on medals podiums had almost sold out. Similarly, anything with the Beijing logo or Olympic sporting icons was also in short supply. It was a shopping frenzy that reminded me of Oxford Street in London during Christmas sales.

If what I witnessed in Beijing is also taking place in Adidas' other 5,000 stores in China, then Adidas is looking to be a sure thing—as is China—to win the most gold from the Beijing Games.

In marketing circles over the past few weeks, many have discussed the difficulty that brands other than sports and refreshment brands face blending into an athletic ambience. But there is one company that stands out for figuring out how to leverage athletes for the better of its brand.

I am talking about Lenovo, the Chinese computer manufacturer. Lenovo purchased the IBM consumer PC license a few years ago and is now confidently entering the global stage with a Chinese brand.

While many sponsors of the Olympic games find it hard to create a lasting impression in viewers’ minds, Lenovo has created a forum that lets athletes contribute: “Voices of the Games” is essentially a blog, hosted by Lenovo, on which numerous athletes state their opinions about the Games, share their personal experiences, and liaise with their fans.

It is an extremely clever move by Lenovo, executed in a market environment that is currently under public scrutiny for limiting free speech and information. And it is amazing how much Lenovo manages to say without actually saying anything!

While the blog is free of political content from what I can see (and I would imagine that this will continue to be the case), the Lenovo brand certainly gets a great return in publicity for being a liberating and progressive force...and a truly modern Chinese brand.

I expect Lenovo to benefit from this perception globally (and it still badly needs momentum and brand personality in the West to my mind), and I expect it to benefit domestically even more. Activities like this could result in secret admiration and a great sense of pride among a young, tech-affine population in China, an audience that is extremely proud of its country and wishes for change at home.

Lenovo could be the star on the horizon.