*This content is brought to you by Thomas Oosthuizen
Like every South African, I was overwhelmed by the coverage and commentary on what is, after all, just a regular marketing initiative. While I still wait to see UK coverage on it, it is all over the SA media.
Is Tottenham Hotspur’s R1 billion sponsorship a waste of money?
No, it isn’t a bad decision.
SA is by now sceptical of any public money spent. We have been “bitten” many times. Like everything else, it can be abused.
Let us view the decision as a business decision.
Can this decision be good for SA?
Yes, it can. It likely is.
Any business decision needs to be considered and sensible. None are entirely without risk. The ones without risk will have no impact at all.
Risk and reward is a fundamental business equation.
If everyone agrees with a marketing decision, it will likely have no impact. I was only ever involved in one campaign that everyone, the Sasol Little Boy commercial, in the nineties liked. To this day, it is the most liked television commercial tested in the 38 years of Kantar tracking.
Every other campaign had issues amongst some consumers. Consumers often dislike things that break the norm of what they are used to. After all, they are people who go about their lives and priorities, not marketers who make these decisions for a living. It is not a matter of whether they are clever or not. They are less interested in these things than we are; they do it for a living. Controversy can be an excellent thing. It is a pity the Spurs story is not big news in the UK!
Marketing is not a democratic game. If it were, we would not need qualified people to make the decisions.
It is sad that everything the SA Government does gets questioned.
Yet, we need to separate the issues. I am not one for jumping onto a bandwagon before I think again. Marketing decisions are business decisions. They should not be the folly of one person.
Someone will benefit in underhanded ways. It is possible there was coercion. It is possible commissions will be paid. Similar things were said about the Qatar World Cup. It is a fact of life that many things the SA Government does are tainted and questioned.
It is also true that SA suffers many ills like load shedding, yet Cape Town had no water over the years, crime remained high, and beaches were polluted. Yet, we may visit Thailand and have a week of rain or visit Dubai in a sandstorm.
Emirates did not stop its advertising after the September 11 attacks on NYC. Today, they are a major global airline. All their competitors stopped advertising. I remember because I was involved in those discussions with their teams. Their focus was to build a brand, even if they had a limited network at the time. When you create a business, distractions are not good. Focus, and do what is required, even amidst concerns. No time will ever be ideal.
So, SA Tourism can wait, but it may be like Waiting for Godot.
Equally, many other areas in SA can benefit from R1 billion. That is not a decision I can comment on, yet R1 billion is unlikely to resolve any significant SA challenge. To be fair to the SA Government, wherever they spend the money, they will be attacked by others that believe their cause is more worthy. It is the messenger that is considered at fault.
The sponsorship is a good idea. It may be an excellent one.
The reasons are many,
- I worked on many SA brands that expanded globally. It is difficult for a rand-based marketer to expand globally. It needs to buy the same marketing exposure at the same foreign prices that foreign companies buy. It is easy for American, French, or Australian companies to compete globally as they have strong currencies. The old notion is, “if you cannot outspend, you need to outsmart.” Vitality is an excellent example of a South African brand applying clever tactical marketing in the UK to make inroads. Nando’s is the same, yet by now, Nando’s is a genuine global brand that plays by international rules. The currency detriment is less critical for them by now.
- The UK is a significant tourist market for SA. Any small increment in numbers, or return tourists, can only be positive for an industry that employs many. One that is still struggling after COVID. Hence, SA Tourism is fishing where the fish are.
- A cost-benefit analysis may well show that a small increment in numbers may make this spending worth it. I have not done one as I do not have any data, but even a partly informed guess, suggests it is.
- The UK loves football. While rugby is large, football is much larger. People are also emotional about football; hence any sponsorship will be seen as positive by the supporters of those teams. The fact that many watch matches in pubs mean it is a good place for talking, and no doubt, the fact that SA sponsors a significant team will be discussed. Brits like SA a lot. They are more optimistic about SA than we are as South Africans.
- Football team members are permanently featured in the media, in their clothing, so the on-air appearance of players is guaranteed, even if no other marketing money is spent supporting the sponsorship. We used to talk about a ratio of 1:3 that is generally stated to endorse that sponsorships need marketing support outside of the event itself. We do not require that multiplier in this instance.
- While R1 billion is a lot of money for SA, it is small in UK marketing terms. We all know we do not pay less for coffee in the UK than the locals just because we have a weaker currency. You pay what it is worth in the market you are playing in. This is hard for any marketer expanding globally into hard currency markets. The only way to overcome this is good tactics or better ideas that will buy a more significant “bang for the buck.”
- Why not another football team that is even more popular? That is the easy one: teams are tied up in long-term sponsorships, so the best ones only sometimes come up. Or a “better” one may be far more expensive.
- Inevitably, global marketing agency networks will be involved. It is outside their interest to make decisions devoid of logic or analysis. SA is a good market for the most prominent groups, and I cannot see them tainting their reputation for a fast buck.
I disagree with this universal condemnation. Let us trust sensible business analytics are behind it. Let us believe nothing untoward will happen. As a country, we compete against the world and need to take our place. Time waits for no one.
Of course, it will be amazing if we can solve all the serious issues like load shedding, yet we must, in the meantime, let all the small guesthouses, restaurants, and small employers go out of business. That will be far worse for us as a country.
Brands are built amidst challenges.
Read also:
