I recently saw that Carsales have sponsored Rugby Live (NRL) and Footy Live (AFL) iPhone Applications. Last year the applications were selling for $1.19 in the App Store and is now free.
CarSales have also made a number of improvements to the app which have made it the closest thing to having Rex Hunt/Ray Warren in your pocket.
This got me thinking about brands sponsoring properties. I really think that there is three distinct times that brands can get involved with a property. When I say property I mean an idea, artist, product, event, sport, application, meme.
This is where a brand can come up with a property or get involved with a property before it launches.
Positive – The brand is intrinsically linked to the property from the start
Negative - Higher risk, if the property is a flop, they have invested a lot of money in the idea.
Example – Rexona Ultimate Athlete,– V Festival
Brands have identified the property on their radar and get involved with the property after it has had a small amount of success.
Positive – Chance to get involved and linked to the product before it hits a critical mass
Negative – Property may be seen as selling out
- May have hit its peak without the brand knowing it.
Examples – CarSales Footy Live, RedBull Air Race
This usually looks like a sponsorship of an established property. The brand does not get a lot of involvement in shaping the property.
Positive – Lowered risk of reaching the desired audience as the property is established and they have good knowledge of the size and type of people who are involved with their property.
Negative – The brand has to fight hard to define how they are adding value to the property otherwise consumers may only see it as a marketing activity
- There is usually a number of brands that are involved with the property so clutter and cut through are an issue.
Toyota AFL, KFC Cricket