Could sponsors hold the key to stopping racism on the terraces?

So Lance Armstrong (under)stated recently that he’d had a ‘difficult couple of weeks’.

Just to recap. In the last fortnight or so (and despite his protestations of innocence), Armstrong has gone from being a much lauded athlete who overcame serious illness to dominate one of the world’s toughest sporting competitions to a discredited drugs cheat and stripped of all his titles.

A ‘difficult couple of weeks’ by anyone’s standards.

Since the evidence against him grew and former team-mates spoke out about his role in the doping culture in the US Postal team, the position of sponsors such as Nike has shifted. Where initially they stood by their man, they ultimately decided to cut the relationship, citing that he had “participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade“.

It’s one of the inherent dangers of sponsorship.

While your endorsee is sweeping all before them you are associated with success and glory. But as Tiger Woods sponsors found out a few years ago, if that star misbehaves your brand is associated with someone getting the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

The news that cycling has/had a doping problem is both unsurprising and depressing.

Unfortunately, the same can also be said for the experiences of the England U21 side in their recent play-off in Serbia.

Racism in football

Having been subjected to racist chants throughout the game, things came to a head at the final whistle when Danny Rose was sent off for kicking the ball into the abusing crowd and punches were thrown as players and coaching staff jostled their way towards the dressing rooms.

Racism is a blight on society. It exists in the UK and while it is not tolerated in public arenas, the economic downturn hasn’t helped our natural tendency to tribalism when things are tough.

For nations that haven’t experienced the levels of immigration of other ‘races’ that the UK has, attitudes to people with different colour skin are not as liberal. Let’s not forget that it wasn’t all plain sailing and painless for us to get to where we are.

Terminology that was common just a couple of generations ago is now taboo. TV shows of the 1970’s wouldn’t even be considered now. And footballers in the UK used to have to run the gauntlet due to their skin colour as recently as the 80’s and indeed, incidents are still being reported in 2012.

None of this excuses what happened in Kruševac and nor does it excuse the lenient approach footballing authorities have taken with racist incidents in the past. In a multi-billion pound industry, fines of tens of thousands of pounds have little impact.

FIFA and UEFA are keen to cite the power of football to change society when awarding tournaments to countries like Ukraine and Qatar but plead impotence when it comes to topics like racism.

The natural indignation in England has lead some to suggest that we should pull out of international tournaments to make a point. Such an action would most likely be met with champagne corks popping in Nyon and Zurich, and would only serve to further dilute our voice in the global game.

The Serbian FA could have offered UEFA a get out of jail card. A statement recognising the monkey chants, apologising to the FA and footballing family and a clear plan of action to ensure it never happens again would have enabled the games rulers to give them a slap on the wrist.

Yet the Serbian FA refuted clear evidence of racist chants and stated that any claims to the contrary were malicious.

‘FA of Serbia absolutely refuses and denies that there were any occurrences of racism before and during the match at the stadium in Kruševac. Making connection between the seen incident – a fight between members of the two teams – and racism has absolutely no ground and we consider it to be a total malevolence.‘

Had they sent a letter saying ‘Fuck you! We did nothing wrong and we’re not changing!’ their attitude couldn’t be any clearer.

And in doing so they batted the ball firmly into UEFA’s court making the question very clear.

Do UEFA believe there was racism at the game and if so, do they consider it acceptable?

Driving behaviour change

Behaviour change and persuasion are all about understanding what motivates of the people you are trying to influence. This means putting your own motives to one side for a moment.

In other words, if we want UEFA and FIFA to impose stronger penalties for incidents of racism we need to understand what influences them.

And let’s be honest, British indignation has never kept them awake at night.

Much higher on the list of priorities are the many sponsors who provide a huge chunk of the money that powers the multi-billion pound football industry.

Just like Nike and Lance Armstrong’s sponsors, FIFA and UEFA’s backers (which include brands like Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Adidas) have a rare opportunity to make their opinion on an unsavoury topic clear.

No brand wants to be associated with racism and upsetting the sponsors is something the footballing authorities do not tolerate. Just ask Niklas Bendtner who was fined £80,000 for showing his Paddy Power lucky pants during EURO2012.

Compared to the fines given to national associations for incidents of racism, it seems rather excessive.

Let’s face it, for all the anger,  griping and T-Shirt protests in England we simply don’t have the clout to demand action.

The sponsors are the ones with real power to influence, and maybe only a rebuke from the people who line their pockets will make finally FIFA and UEFA start taking racism in football seriously.

The birth of ‘anti’ sponsorship?

The way celebrity endorsements normally work is that a brand will identify someone with a high profile who is respected by core consumers and who embodies what the brand is all about, or wants to be all about.

It’s not always as straightforward as it sounds.

Some brands have teamed up with the most unlikely partners, while others have learned the hard way that celebrities are human too and that means they can make mistakes and decisions that you don’t want your brand associated with.

Not what Nike, Gillette et al signed up for

However, some marriages are made in heaven and can even lead to lucrative co-branded products such as the Nike Air Jordan range that was much desired by a young Zeitgeist.

Given how much kudos or harm a celebrity endorsement can do, Zeitgeist was piqued to read that Abercrombie and Fitch had suggested that they could pay MTV to not allow characters from Jersey Shore to wear their brands as the association was damaging.

One of the inherent dangers of being an aspirational or fashionable brand that is not priced to make it all but inaccessible to the very lucky few is that you will be worn by undesirables who want your brand to rub off on them.

This, combined with the modern phenomenon of reality TV shows and the glorification of the minor celebrity with limited talent but a huge thirst for fame, can result in a brand receiving more exposure from accidental off-brand associations than their much crafted paid for work.

It is to mitigate this kind of damage – and to generate some buzz – that Abercrombie and Fitch have made their proposal.

While offering to pay someone to not associate with your brand might be a simple solution and a reversal of the traditional model of paying someone to endorse your brand, it isn’t particularly creative and Zeitgeist can’t help but wonder it could actually be dangerous.

Now that a precedent has been set, will we now see the smarter minor celebrities attempt to ‘extort’ lucrative ‘anti-sponsorship’ arrangements with brands who would want nothing to do with them.

With marketing budgets already modest, we hope not.

Tiger burns bright in new Nike spot

Nike’s new spot for Tiger Woods, ahead of his return back to the greens and fairways later today, is an interesting one. It features a monochrome vision of Tiger as he looks into the camera, while in a voiceover his late father questions what the future will bring for him, now the skeletons are out of the proverbial closet. Zeitgeist reported on Tiger’s indiscretions before, and while brands like Accenture have sought to distance themselves, Nike have stood firm. Brand Republic has more. At what point do we distinguish between the athlete or performer, and their personal life? What do you think of the new ad?

The Fearful Symmetry of Tiger Woods

From the Winter 2009 Zeitgeist…

Brand ambassadors are nothing new. Napoleon (seen above in a casual pose) has long been such an ambassador for the watchmaker Breguet, having worn one during his short (for he was short) life. But what happens when the real world conflicts with the manufactured artifice? Are all of Andre Agassiʼs triumphs now overshadowed by drug addiction? What of recent rumours that Tony the Tiger is diabetic?

Tiger Woodsʼ indiscretions have highlighted such concerns; what happens when an athlete who is not only a champion in his chosen field, but also seemingly the epitome of a gentleman in his private life, turns out to be less than perfect? Tigerʼs presence – a young man of mixed ethnicity in a sport dominated by old, rotund white guys obsessed with the faux exclusivity of country clubs – was a huge statement in of itself. It was for all these reasons though that some major blue-chip brands chose to invest in his good name. Who can forget the fantastic Nike spot of yesteryear?

While his namesake currently graces the Spirit Airlines website, Tiger can unfortunately no longer be found on the Accenture homepage. For a company to so abruptly end such a sponsorship is an enormous blow to both parties and both brands. Industry Standard wrote, “Tiger has literally become the sole face, the strategic embodiment, the business essence of Accenture, the $22 billion global IT, outsourcing and business consultancy proclaim[ing]: ʻWe know what it takes to be a Tiger.ʼ Everything about that slogan has now become a PR debacle, comedian’s punch line and perplexing psychological  examination…”.

Tiger is now on an “indefinite” leave from golf and the brands that rely on the sportsman solely for his golfing prowess are sure to be affected. Electronics Arts will have a hard time selling the umpteenth version of the Tiger Woods PGA Tour franchise if the eponymous player does not compete. TV ratings for golf tournaments will similarly suffer, according to the FT and New York Times. Nike, PepsiCo and AT&T are all of a ʻwait and seeʼ mindset. Gillette will “remove its Woods-related advertising for now” in order to respect his much sought-after privacy. Gilletteʼs triumvirate has suffered of late. Thierry Henry is also mired in scandal after denying Ireland a place in the World Cup by somewhat guiding a ball with his hand at a crucial point in the game. Gillette has denied the act will affect his contract. Roger Federer seems to be the only one currently untainted, though not wishing to jinx him, Zeitgeist will move swiftly on…

Ultimately, such crises can be fleeting. Michael Phelps, pictured with a bong and promptly dropped by Kelloggʼs, will not be forgotten for winning a Fort Knox-worth of gold medals in Beijing. NFL player Michael Vick organised brutal dogfights in his free time, but returned to the game to cheers from the fickle crowd. There may be lasting impact this time, however. As the Zeitgeist team have said before, if caught, the best practice is to immediately admit culpability, express sincere contriteness and take ownership of the situation, as Accenture have done.