Sport Sponsorship: Is It Good Business?

With so much negative press attributed to Bank of America’s activation of its NFL/Super Bowl sponsorship rights, I think its important to be clear on why companies sponsor events. Critics of the banks have every right to be upset with them for a number of reasons, and I’m not going to spend any time defending the banks or Wall Street. But sponsorship doesn’t represent corporate greed and frivolous expense accounts, as many in the media seem to believe – or at least want to infer.  Instead, sponsorship is simply one of several powerful strategies a brand uses to achieve its marketing and sales goals; that is, along with advertising, promotion, PR and web/social media, sponsorship is a key segment of a fully integrated campaign.

To better understand how the marketing industry considers the rationale for sports sponsorship, I’ve pulled several key points from a comprehensive July ‘08 Economist special report entitled “The Business of Sport: Sponsorship Form“:

1. There’s big money at stake here, but keep in mind that the worldwide sponsorship of events, teams and athletes (estimated at $38 billion) is less than 10% of what is spent on advertising (at $449 billion). That said, sponsorship has grown by 11% annually the last 10 years – the best testament to the belief of how effective it can be.
2. Though there are many sponsorship opportunities out there, sports is the dominant player (the example here was MasterCard, where sports account for 85% of sponsorship dollars).
3. There are 3 main reasons which make sports sponsorship valuable: the emotional connection with fans (passion); the ability to more effectively reach/target a specific demographic (vs. advertising); and the movement by the events themselves of “less is more” (i.e., less sponsors makes valuable sponsorships even more valuable, a notion often credited to the NBA back in the early 90’s, I believe).
4. In contrast to traditional advertising (but much like product placement and social media), the key benefit here is that sponsoring brands enjoy direct association with the sponsored event, team or player.
5. While brands have “access” to the sponsored event, they must activate that sponsorship to fully realize all of its benefits – often to the tune of two-to-three times the amount of the sponsorship.
6. In today’s environment, the goals (sales/client entertainment, advertising, promotion, PR) are often measurable – necessarily so in most cases, to justify the big dollars spent. That’s not to say that other benefits such as employee incentives and community outreach aren’t important, but they’re not ultimately driving these purchases in 2009.

So what’s all the hub bub about here? The bank’s marketing department entered in to a binding, multi-year agreement with one of the most popular sports leagues on the planet to sponsor the most-watched game on television in America. To maximize the benefits from that sponsorship, the bank activated that sponsorship. Should I be sympathetic to the media’s “perception of impropriety” that arises when bank executives partake in the “festivities” by “schmoozing” with clients? To a point. Perhaps every effort should have been made to keep costs down by staying in more modest hotels or substituting local or regional executives, but as hospitality and client entertainment are significant and proven tactics to achieve pure sales goals, the answer is simply”no”. And the idea of the bank raffling off the suite/tickets that is required as part of the sponsorship package is appreciated for its intent to “give back to the people”, but ultimately inane when you consider it’s core business purpose.

The point is even clearer when you consider the lengths to which the media (from ABC News to Michael Moore) went to deride Bank of America’s activation of the NFL’s “FanFest”. Aside from the fact that B of A had contractually agreed to the sponsorship prior to the meltdown, the activation of FanFest was arguably the most significant aspect of their sponsorship as it allowed the bank to speak directly with more than 200,000 NFL fans over the week-long period – thereby reinforcing relationships with existing customers, and more importantly creating relationships (i.e., accounts) with potential customers (memories that last a lifetime). Yes, it costs a lot of money to build a major tent, but they’re investing in a necessary product they’ll amortize over the life of the sponsorship. And might I remind everyone that it costs $30,000 these days just to run one :30 national spot on basic daytime programming when not a heck of a lot of people are supposedly viewing. Yes, all this costs a lot of money, but an organization’s ability to effectively reach consumers is undoubtedly getting tougher and tougher as media outlets expand and we, the consumer, take more control – never mind that every marketing department now has to consider how the media is going to interpret its efforts in doing its job and fulfilling its contractual obligations.

Interestingly, I’ve yet to hear the media directly attack a struggling brand’s advertising, promotion and PR “campaigns”.  Those elements seem to be “acceptable” as good business practice.  Indeed, along with the Bank of America scrum, much of the news has been about the retreat of Buick’s sponsorship of Tiger Woods, Honda from Formula One, and NASCAR’s troubles.

Perhaps that provides the true takeaway we should take from all this: sponsorship really is the most effective at drawing attention. Just make sure your brand can stand all the attention its going to get.

I Don’t Need Tickets; I’ve Got A Better Seat At Home. Is That Really A Problem?

Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal recently entitled “Are Pro Sports Too Big To Fail?“. I was commenting on the well written Event and Entertainment Marketing Blog, and thought I’d continue it here. Seemed funny when my response was bigger than the post.

The pressure on professional sports teams to reduce their prices – particularly ticket prices, and hopefully hot dog and beer prices – is a foregone conclusion (60 days to go, Bronx Bombers – when are you going to tell your best fans where they’re sitting???). Likewise, the 1 year sponsorship deals, along with perhaps any new sponsorship or suite deals that come up in the next 6-12 months, will likely be affected as well. This is the reality of 2009, where – as my wife likes to say – “everyone expects a deal – and now they need one too”. Heck, my cable/phone/internet provider (Verizon) was only too happy to reconfigure my existing deal – with more channels and for less money – simply because I called and asked to understand how I could save a few bucks. Best call I’ve made in a long time.

There is valid reason for concern that stadiums will feel the pinch in the coming days/seasons. Just as the leagues (and teams) are emphasizing the “character” of their players (and managers, scouts, etc.), the issue isn’t “value for money” now but basic affordability – for the little guy and corporate America. Even so, it’s hard to fathom – at least for MLB, NBA and NFL – that (even more absurdly) high ticket prices will truly threaten their existence. Even if fans stay home in “uncomfortable numbers”, they’re not going to walk away from their team – and the entertainment value – when they’ve invested so heavily not just in their teams’ fortunes, but in the plush, multi-media, family rooms that are now the heart-and-soul of their home. I know I’m not. And isn’t this what drives the big money? Network rights, annual league subscriptions, and ultimately digital participation? All of which is ultimately driven by the fans who are home rooting/watching/interacting.

As the article reports, many of the top leagues (and teams) protect their main revenue base with long term (i.e., 4+ year) deals. This goes for TV rights, suites, and sponsorship. Most of those also have annual increases built in (if they’re CPI, perhaps they might even go down), so – even if attendance dips a bit – they can readily forecast revenues being essentially flat. Of course, if the recession worsens substantially, major businesses fail in large numbers, and the crisis lengthens, then that will be a whole other kettle of fish. Given those circumstances, no business – except bankruptcy law – is immune.

I also can’t agree enough that, for the true fan, the game experience always outperforms the one in the family room. It’s interesting, however, that stadiums only hold tens of thousands of people, while the fan base for each team is in the multi-millions. I was first asked to consider this fact at a very compelling Sports Marketing 2.0 Conference last Fall. Industry leaders there discussed how to grow revenues, not by outselling competitors or increasing prices, but by making the pie bigger. For some leagues, that meant internationally – via TV rights, primarily, plus events and even expansion there; for this group, however, as team sites have proven that the fan base is much bigger than anyone thought, extending far beyond the stadium and the local community, the long term growth is on the web.

Honor the game, respect the fan, and protect the brand. These principles have served the leagues very well. To keep the good time rolling, perhaps we can add “connect the advertiser” to this list. Consumer brands understand the importance of not barking at consumers but connecting to them at a time/place where they can most be influenced. The stadium will always be an important place to deliver the message, but brands will inevitably start to invest larger dollars, not where fans watch, but where they will soon actively participate. The underlying question on the web, of course, is how to monetize this fanatacism. The experts in the room at the Sports Marketing 2.0 Conference didn’t have all the answers, but there was a quiet confidence they’re on the right track – and that Madison Avenue would soon come to their senses.

*** For a quick peak at how teams continue top push fan interaction forward, check out the Washington Redskins website, along with their recently released fan site:
http://www.redskinsrule.com. I can do without the cheerleader overkill, but from what I’ve seen and heard, they are at the cutting edge of fan development, applications, widgets, etc. Interesting, too, that the WSJ article notes this franchise recently contracted some of their front office – I’m curious what positions were cut, and if the digital team was affected.

The One Second Spot

Thank you, Miller Beer. Your 1 second TV spot campaign is funny, on message, and effective (at least as far as I’m concerned – it’s MGD time at my house for the Super Bowl for sure).

Is there a better case-study out there for how to build social media in to your multi-media campaign? Just think where this is going with YouTube…Facebook…Twitter, etc. I would wager there’s going to be some everyday slang that emerges from all this as well. Anyone and everyone can participate (assuming you’ve got a birthday before January 1988) and it’s got legs for every major (and minor) sporting event out there. And unlike most attempted “viral” efforts, Miller doesn’t even have to promise anything for the folks who are passing it around – though they may want to consider something here to keep it going.

This isn’t going to change the need for 30-second spots – I think Miller has a pretty strong brand – but this is legendary stuff. The creative folks running the show over at Anheuser Bush (the folks who paid a gazillion dollars for national broadcast rights) must be feeling a little squeamish right about now…

Bon Jour Milwaukee!

Let’s Rock & Roll…To The Rock Annex

I got to experience the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Annex NYC today. The Rock Annex is New York City’s latest and greatest attraction, a state-of-the-art celebration of the history and significance of Rock & Roll, and I highly recommend that you make plans to visit it.

As one who had a lot of experience with the quite similar yet misunderstood Sports Museum of America, don’t be fooled by the name or some other preconceived notion – this isn’t a stodgy museum with row after row of guitars, nor is it simply a “small”, cut-down version of its parent, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum in Cleveland. Without question, the Rock Annex stands on its own as a fun, 1.5 hour, multi-sensory experience that delivers a full range of emotions and even taught me quite a bit. Indeed, there are a hefty number of reasons to take the quick trip down to 76 Mercer Street in fashionable Soho: the introductory film and galleries to overview the origins of Rock & Roll as well as tie present rock stars back to the pioneers; the very slick Sonnheiser headphones which instantly play music based on whatever display you’re reviewing; the tremendous selection of artifacts which help to tell and shape each story, including my favorite – the very personal letters which good friends Art Garfunkel and Paul Simon shared as young men during the summer break; the well written but not-too-dense information panels which are strewn throughout; and much more.

Despite all of the above, there’s one reason above all else I encourage you to go: to remind yourself how much you loved the bands and their music of your youth. For me, it was The Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, The Doors, Bob Dylan, Cat Stevens, Bruce Springsteen, Rush, and The Police. In fact, nearly every image, song, and artifact put before me engendered a powerful memory from more than the first half of my life. I kid you not, every single one of these special “moments” in my life came rushing back to me:

• listening in amazement to my big brother sound just like Cat Stevens while he was in the shower;
• running through the doors at Siwanoy elementary school screaming Alice Cooper’s famed “School’s out for summer” lyrics;
• buying my first album – Aerosmith’s Toys In The Attic - at EJ Korvettes;
• being extremely jealous that kids in my junior high school were going to see KISS live;
• Getting changed after practice during Freshman football in the Fall of 1978 while we all tried to sing along (you just couldn’t call it “rapping”) to the Sugar Hill Gang
• my first rock concert – the 2nd night of the No Nukes Concerts at Madison Square Garden in 1979 – and the very first time I had ever heard the brilliance of Bruce Springsteen;
• skiing in Vermont with high school friends, celebrating it all with 48 continuous hours of The Doors;
• being haunted by Toto’s “Africa”, a particular favorite of my long distant high school girlfriend;
• late night life-sessions sophomore year of college in our “den of ignorance” featuring Bob Dylan’s just-released Infidels album;
• spinning records at Penn fraternities the next year as half the DJ tandem of JPGP;
• driving straight through (18 hours without getting out of the car!) from New York to Florida accompanied only by my good friends from REM; and
• visiting places near and far while catching a band at, among others, the Beacon Theater, TLA, Spectrum, Veteran’s Stadium, CBGB, Apollo Theater, Hollywood Bowl, RFK Stadium, Giants Stadium, Perth Entertainment Centre, Kuala Lumpur Stadium, and Jakarta’s Hard Rock Cafe.

Like the power of smell, a song can immediately bring you back to a place you’ve long forgotten – and as if you were right there when it happened. That’s powerful stuff indeed, and the best reason I can give to recommend getting down to the Rock Annex.

——————–

Quick aside: I have to admit that I was drawn in to the slick video waiting for me at the end of the tour which invites visitors to the official Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum in Cleveland. At first, aside from a lot of good personal memories of the city, I was absolutely mesmerized by the size, scope and sheer aesthetic of the I. M. Pei-designed structure. And having enjoyed this particular experience so much, you realize there more there was even more to see, do and learn at the parent 55,000 square foot venue (sounds like it’s about 3 times the size). That trip will undoubtedly take a backseat to getting up to Cooperstown (how have I not been there yet? oh yeah, it’s in Cooperstown), but I’ll get to Cleveland some day soon as well. The bonus there is I get to make sure Canton gets crossed off the list, too.

Obama To The Rescue – But Of The Arts?

Yes, The Arts Relies Heavily On Support, But Is The Federal Government Really The Answer, or Should We Simply and Forever Pursue The Separation of Art and State?

The lead Arts story in today’s New York Times reports that leaders in the arts community are pushing for recognition of the importance of culture as part of the economic recovery plan. In it, the President of the national lobbying group – Americans for the Arts – states “The artist’s paycheck is every bit as important as the steelworker’s paycheck or the autoworker’s paycheck.” It’s tough to make an argument against the importance of the arts, and there’s certainly a good argument to be made that the current bailout should include the arts: the economic benefits are critical to most vibrant metropolitan areas (to the tune of $166 billion in spending nationally); they support nearly 5.7 million jobs; and, quite simply, the arts are arguably as important to our society as the air we breathe.

So what’s really at issue here? Assuming the arts are in financial turmoil, what role should the Federal government have?

More Money To The National Endowment of the Arts (NEA)?

Congress is about to consider a bill which includes a $50 million supplement to the NEA. The New York Times’ article notes that these funds would be distributed to nonprofit arts organizations as well as state and local arts agencies. As the NEA endowment for fiscal year 2009 is $145 million, this proposed supplement represents a substantial 35% increase in funding. Interestingly, that point isn’t part of the discussion, as the approximate $100 million in grants that derives from the NEA are a mere 1% in the overall funding of the arts (and arts education) across the US. According to a 2007 NEA report entitled How The United States Funds The Arts, funding for non-profit arts organizations comes from several sources: ticket sales (44%); individual donations (31%); corporations and foundations (12%); Federal government (9%); and city and state funding (4%) (Note: this doesn’t include the value that the government “contributes” through tax breaks). That’s not to say that the government support is inconsequential, as the various government resources are often considered the means for allowing the projects to begin to take form in the first place – think of it as “seed money”, something any entrepreneur cannot live without. Just on the numbers, however, we primarily fund the arts through the private sector (87%), and the NEA and other government entities play a relatively small but vital role in the food chain. Remember as well that the banks and automotive industry bailouts are in the hundreds of BILLLIONS, so this is a mere pittance of that amount.

The NEA has been a political lightning rod since its inception in 1965. As was noted in today’s Times article, the endowment peaked in 1992 at $176 million at the start of Clinton’s first term. Starting in 1978, during President Carter’s term, funding for the NEA rose considerably, and despite fluctuations, remained significant for the next 19 years. The endowment was cut by nearly 40% in 1996 to $100 million, as conservative groups heavily criticized the agency for supporting controversial artists followed by an awakening by the courts that government probably shouldn’t be the purveyor of what constitutes “acceptable” art. In fact, strong overtures were made that the agency be completely eliminated the following year.

The agency survived, however, and the endowment simply remained at levels below $100 million during the remainder of Clinton’s 2nd term. The endowment actually enjoyed a 20% increase during President George W. Bush’s 8 years. Much of the credit for this improvement went to Dan Gioa, the outgoing President of the NEA, who successfully lobbied Republicans to reinvigorate the NEA; politics in one form of another made Gioa a casualty once again, as he resigned last week precisely on Obama’s inauguration day. Obama has yet to fill the role.

This Time It’s Different: Show Me The Money

The additional $50 million requested for this year’s NEA endowment is a hefty increase on what is essentially a very small budget item. Based on Obama’s willingness and fortitude to put the arts on the national agenda, this band-aid should pass muster (and let’s hope someone has done there homework to ensure it’s the right amount and has the necessary oversight). As with other bailout fixes that are happening, I think the money will take a backseat to the greater good here. That’s a pretty radical switch for the arts community, where the controversy of the government deciding – arbitrarily or not in the eye of the beholder – who gets what (and who doesn’t) may seem moot as we try to save ourselves along with the beauty, history and human capacity that the arts brings to our lives.

A Culture Czar To Lead The Way

But can – or should – the President of the NEA, or a Culture Czar if some more pesky folks have their way – be made more powerful in the arts world? In the 2007 NEA report (noted above), Gioa articulates the origin and decentralized nature of how the arts are supported and funded in the United States; as a result, he states that the NEA is not positioned to dictate cultural policy but instead “enters in a series of ongoing conversations about our culture, out of which emerge thousands of collaborations, large and small, national and regional, and local.” Indeed, given our cultural history and diversity (in contrast to other Western countries, where 80+% of cultural funding comes from their federal government), not to mention a First Amendment ruling that government cannot withhold money to dictate the content of art, it would seem that the outcome is in fact in its rightful place – perhaps it’s not a complete separation of art and state, but the assessment of art belongs with the cultural institutions; the role of funding it is a shared, delicate balance that inevitably tilts heavily toward private support to ultimately create the cultural diversity we aspire to achieve.

Leslie Friedman Rosenthal of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts recently authored a well-received opinion in Newsday. Rightfully jumping on Obama’s “culture is good” bandwagon, Ms. Rosenthal effectively and cogently argues that cultural institutions have evolved considerably, and that any national governance would do well to explore the local success stories; that is, they have had to abide to oversight and regulation, adjust to economic realities, while also being responsive and positive contributors to the communities in which they reside. Rather than call for a Culture Czar, or even for enhanced Federal funding, she proffers the simple idea of a coordinated national arts policy.

We arguably already have the mechanism to make that happen in the form of the NEA, much as Mr. Gioa set forth in his report. If there’s too much NEA baggage, then let’s call it something else. What matters is that we give the leadership of that entity the resources and talent to develop and espouse a vision which unites the cause, promotes best practices, and engenders respect and admiration for the arts. And let’s not forget about (possibly enlarging) incentives in the tax code to continue private funding. Whether we choose to have this entity seek national “policy” or “guidelines” – terms which inevitably cause friction because dollars are at stake – is perhaps even left for another day.

It’s no secret that now, more than ever, we need true leadership in this country. That’s just as true for the arts community. President Obama has taken that first very big step of opening the door and pushing politics aside. Let’s hope the arts community heeds the call to walk through it together – responsibly and with great vision. I, for one, can’t think of a higher calling.

Will The Arts & Entertainment Communities Survive A Longstanding Economic Depression?

Ongoing reports about the economic downturn are certainly the harbinger of doom for many businesses, if not industries – not to mention the cities and families who are ultimately affected. Unemployment is surging, home prices are falling, wages are stagnant, costs (energy, transportation, marketing, etc.) are rising, tourism is slumping, competition is fierce, price wars are raging, etc. The New York Times reported yesterday that software giant Microsoft announced it was laying off 5% of its workforce today for the first time in its history – to the surprise of all, which is itself amazing; on top of that, unemployment claims this week (596k) are the highest in 26 years.

Is entertainment – in any form – able to overcome and outlast the fear, anxiety and seemingly endless downward spiral that’s gripping all of us, or are the economic indicators the “canary in a coal mine” for what lies ahead? (I live in a town outside of New York City filled with once-titans of Wall Street, so this may feel exaggerated to some – just not me and most of my neighbors). Let me get one thing out of the way: the bailout, assuming there’s a bottom-up application, won’t likely do much for the industry unless the mounting bills are so big that people decide its more important to have a little fun – if only for a few hours – than worry about whether the cable company gets their $100 this month. We used to say at Ringling Bros. that tough times were good for the box office, a paradox which may stand true for the entertainment industry as a whole – at least those which provide a valuable departure from reality and at truly (replacing “reasonably” for now) “affordable” prices.

My interest in this topic arose today when Patron Technology released their 2008 Holiday Season Arts Revenue Survey. I was relieved to read that nearly 60% of the organizations who responded reached or exceeded revenue budget over the final 2+ months of last year. At face value, the news is promising – and it certainly reinforces the axiom “the early bird gets the worm”; that is, the organizations with the longer marketing campaigns – aka those that got in front of their competition, not to mention the earliest news of the meltdown – had the best results. As someone often (affectionately?) referred to as a devil’s advocate, I would love to dig in to the results (and even review how the questions were framed); indeed, while statistically appropriate to use the feedback of 300 organizations polled, it seems likely to me that a large percentage of the other 7,700 organizations that didn’t respond weren’t all that interested to share their dour news, confidential or not. Needless to say, I’ve sent inquiries to the major entertainment associations to dig deeper, and look forward to sharing more details.

Perhaps the movie industry, probably the most transparent of all entertainment and the most up-to-date in terms of reporting, could shed some light? As a whole, box office receipts were essentially flat in 2008 against the prior year. As in any industry, there are a limitless number of factors that contribute to the story here, but the bottom line is that box office receipts and tickets sold were only slightly down. Overall, the year featured a lower number of blockbusters, but perhaps more importantly a deeper list of movies that made significant dollars. How’s the industry faring so far in 2009? If last weekend (the long MLK weekend) is any indication, it’s going to be a great year for the movie biz. It set a record for the 4 day weekend, exceeding 2007 by 24%. It can certainly be explained by the very broad range of movies offered, but I’d go further and say that people of all demographics really hit the wall last weekend – they’re tired of worrying about their lives (most of which they have little control over) and needed to simply get out the house and be entertained. How else can you explain the phenomenal showing of Paul Blart: Mall Cop! I’d also add that the pending presidential inauguration, and all the positive sentiment of Obama taking over, contributed here as well. Finally, I should point out that innovation (in the form of theaters purposefully designed for 3-D) is also poised give a boost to this industry; indeed, the requirement that all entertainment be truly interactive/experiential has arrived in cinemas (again).

Will the rising interest in attending movies continue? There’s a good argument to be made for it, but perhaps not for the same reasons as other forms of entertainment. As the prices of concerts, Broadway, professional sports, family shows, and exhibitions, not to mention all of the ancillary fees and charges associated with them, have risen dramatically the last 10 years, perhaps the $10-12 cinema (along with the zoo, aquarium and museum admission) will be this generation’s means of escaping the everyday. I’m not saying corporate America is going to pass up their corporate suites at the Yankee Stadiums, but the little guy is getting worn down, and you can only get so much money from a major Mets fan like me (i.e., the mandatory sports package on Comcast for the time being).

And let’s not count out the next phase of entertainment innovation, particularly for the arts/classical/museum communities – “live” performances (or personalized, shared experiences) on the internet. Much as pay-per-view on cable revolutionized boxing events and made them accessible to millions, the web will very soon change the landscape. The only question is whether the proverbial pie can, in fact, continue to grow, or whether there’s only so much money to go around and time in a day to consume – in this case, your favorite entertainment from anywhere in the world. I’m reminded of the expression “if you could sell a toothbrush to every person in China for $1, you’d be a billionaire”. My, how times have changed; today, you’d be a multi-billionaire. And why stop at China these days?

One last muse – about 7 years ago, I was walking out of Yankee Stadium. It was bedlam, as usual, and everyone around me was graciously sharing their passion for the team. Because of the decibel level that night, I had no choice but to be part of the cell phone conversation a young, Latino mom (I’d say she was in her late 20’s) was having with her friend as she exited the stadium. At one point, she mentioned to her friend that she hadn’t been be able to pay some of her bills that month. The part of the conversation that always stuck out was that she had chosen to pay her cable and cell phone bills, and had deemed her rent and electric bill to be not as important. I was completely shocked, but it’s become abundantly clear: can Americans take the flat screen down? Unplug the Wii? Turn off the Blackberrry? Resist $150 upper tier tickets to another band’s reunion tour? Live with rabbit ears again (not even an option)? Will board games, jigsaw puzzles, and family nights rise up, much as they did during the Great Depression when families passed them around to save money (today, you’d probably feel, or made to feel, like you’re breaking the law if you did it)? Of course not. We’re fully invested, and we take them for granted as being part of our everyday life. Entertainment, much like fashionable brands, a cell phone, gym membership, and organic food, is most assuredly a “necessity” in America today.

But there’s little doubt that things are going to change as the rules continue to change…quickly…and in ways we can’t even imagine yet. So fasten your seat-belts – and make sure you’ve got the latest GPS with you (another necessity!).

JP

FYI – if you’re into the origin of metaphors, check out wisegeek.com for the history and meaning of the expression, “canary in a coal mine“. Should you have a soft spot, you might feel a bit of remorse for the bird with the unique ability to sniff out toxic gases. There’s a nice piece on phrases.org.uk for “harbinger of doom” as well.

DETERMINING WHERE (OR WHEN) THE RUBBER ACTUALLY MEETS (OR HITS) THE ROAD

An examination of a jingle that’s clearly a metaphor, treated as a proverb, yet argued to be nothing more than a cliché.

I get asked nearly every day how I came to name the agency Rubber Road Marketing. For those happy with the short answer, its simple: I wanted a somewhat actionable name that stood for something I believe in; it also had to be fun and interesting to share; partly to break the ice but also to give the firm a personality (let’s forgo “brand” here) on which to stand and grow.

After considering ideas for several weeks, I chose to adopt a name based on the phrase “where the rubber meets the road”.  We used the term often and quite effectively at Feld Entertainment to signify and/or challenge the consequences of a proposed marketing initiative, the next touring property, or other new program which would impact the company – or more directly, the field marketing and sales teams located throughout the Continent.

The expression has seemingly taken on a substantially greater importance in this year 2009, as most everything we do in our professional lives is judged by the almighty ROI and the requirement that results be measurable.  In short, the smart clients want to cut through the BS and focus on how to best achieve their end goals.  And so, I chose a name that reflects my desire to be a true difference-maker to my clients – part of their “solution-team”, so to speak.

In researching the phrase, I ultimately found it to be somewhat mysterious – not only in its origin, but also in its usage, including the wide range of users themselves.

ORIGIN

The genesis of the phrase is (unofficially) credited to a national advertising “jingle” used throughout the 1960s and 1970s by the former Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

Wherever wheels are rolling,
No matter what the load,
The name that’s known is Firestone
Where the rubber meets the roads

Given that Firestone kept it running for nearly 20 years, a generation of Americans became well acquainted with the tune. At some point – the exact date of which is still to be determined, the phrase “where the rubber meets the road” became part of our lexicon. It also reached across all disciplines: business, religion, sports, education, relationships, etc. The phrase was even chosen as the title of the first cut on Meatloaf’s 1995 “Welcome To The Neighborhood” album.

DEFINITION

Despite its widespread use, a cursory review of reference books strongly suggests that the definition of the phrase (or “saying”) remains unsettled. To illustrate my point, the author of the definition in WikiAnswers acknowledges that the definition changes with context, but only after sharing four positions of what it could mean and then still adding “or something along those lines”. A recent LinkedIn discussion devoted to the use of the phrase likewise piqued my curiosity after each participant shared a different interpretation and example.

An additional review of literary texts in which the phrase was used (made possible thanks to our friends at Google) reveals an astounding array of uses by each writer. While context is indeed required to give form to the term, the versatility ascribed to the phrase necessarily precludes a simple or general definition. In short, the phrase appears to mean several things, and remains open to further study and clarification – much as the WikiAnswers definition states, though awkwardly.

I used all of the ways others have applied the phrase to create four (4) related, but distinct, uses of “where (or when) the rubber meets (or hits) the road”.

1. The Implementation:

• when theory is put into practice/action
• when ideas become reality
• when plans and convictions become actions
• when the petal hits the metal
• when things start moving
• at the launch (execution)
• when you put something to work

2. The Practical:

• where you venture beyond goals and focus on objectives and measurement
• does it work? did we get results?
• it works or it doesn’t
• where we find out what happens
• where we go from “talking the talk” to “walking the walk”
• bringing the conversation around to results

3. The Significance of the Moment

• when it comes down to it
• when it gets serious
• the moment of truth
• the heart of the matter
• the most important point for something
• where we separate the women from the girls (feel free to substitute “the kids from the adults”, “the winners from the losers”, or “those that can from those that do”).

4. The Practitioner

• by whom the work is actually done (workers who take direction from executives)
• the work itself

To further demonstrate how hard it is to apply a simple definition to “when/where the rubber hits the road”, the following is a short list of examples I’ve come across for how the expression was applied. In some instances, the example fits nicely within one of the four “buckets” above; oftentimes, however, the phrase share 2, 3 or even 4 of them.

• A child’s birth is “when the rubber meets the road” for fatherhood
• Right to abortion is “when the rubber meets the road” to determine if women are equal citizens
• Teachers are “where the rubber meets the road” for children and their development
• Jury instructions are “where the rubber meets the road” for the law
• Clinical trials is “when the rubber meets the road” for pharmacological studies
• Incurring debt is “when/where the rubber meets the road” for anyone starting a business
• Daily life and personal practice is “when/where the rubber meets the road” for religious followers
• Employees are “where the rubber meets the road” for any brand management (they take a company’s story to the streets and connect the directly with customers)
• When there’s a crisis is “when the rubber meets the road” for relationships
• The “race” for an athlete is “when the rubber meets the road” and they see how good they are (or aren’t)
• Once the political race is over, governing is “when the rubber meets the road” for any politician.
• Sex is “when the rubber meets the road” for intimacy.
• For the condom, its during sexual intercourse “when the rubber meets the road” (the point being that it either breaks or slips 1 in 6 times).
• Making a sale is “where the rubber meets the road” and your business ultimately succeeds or fail.
• The ability to stick to the diet is “where the rubber meets the road” for weight control (i.e., where your fork hits your food).
• The ability of Nike to compete is “where the rubber meets the road” in tough economic times (Brandweek article)
• Publishers are “where the rubber meets the road” when researching children’s books of African American interest
• Tires are “where the rubber meets the road” (love the literal application in a self-help auto-mechanic book)

As a quick aside, you can see that “when” and “where” are often interchangeable in the phrase. I actually came across a few folks who chastised others for using “when” here, as it isn’t how the original Firestone jingle read. My take is that the phrase has moved beyond “where”, and that both/either words are correct depending on the reference. Likewise, the expression is often stated as when the rubber “hits” the road (as opposed to “meets” the road). You can argue the literal differences of these words, and whether “meets” is technically correct because of the origin, but there’s nothing to indicate a varied meaning in the phrase as a result of using one or the other.

Idiom, Metaphor, Proverb, Adage and/or simply a Cliche?

Now that we’ve started to give some concrete form to the phrase, I thought it might be appropriate to point out that there are scholars (loosely defined in the 2.0 world, as we all know) who do not believe the phrase adds value to our communication – that is, it’s simply another weak cliche in our vocabulary; a phrase considered so trite, that it’s simply not worth saying. Representing the top all-time business cliche candidates are the usual suspects – “win-win”, “think outside the box”, “hit the ground running”, “giving 110%”, and “putting out fires”.

This is all subjective, of course, but I’d argue that, despite being birthed from a TV advertisement, “where the rubber meets the road” is NOT just another corny line. Instead, it is a practical, flexible phrase that gives unique, elevated focus to a place OR a time OR a person/group of singular importance. There are perhaps better examples to support this point, but I was struck, for instance, at how Wikipedia itself uses the phrase in defining its own Help Desk. By applying the phrase, Wikipedia gives the reader a greater sense of importance to the Help Desk; skeptics might call it self-importance, but – from Wikipedia’s viewpoint, it effectively communicates to the reader how significant that role is.

Whether it is in fact a “cliche”, there are other descriptive terms which can be applied. First, “when/where the rubber meets/hits the road” is clearly an idiom; that is, it’s a phrase whose meaning cannot be made sense of from the the literal definition, but refers instead to a figurative meaning that is known only through common use. Examples include “fit as a fiddle”, “kick the bucket” and “go Dutch”. Idioms are not usually translatable. Indeed, a recent forum on WordReferenc.com included a request to translate “when the rubber hits the road” in to French and makes the point; while the participants seemed satisfied with their suggestions, they moved to find a phrase which corresponded in its intent, and not a literal translation.

Second, the phrase is clearly a metaphor. There are indeed instances where the phrase is used literally (the chapter on tires in a self-help automotive book is perhaps most guilty here, but I have to give credit to the editor who used the expression to label a story recounting a recent, unknown dumping of sneakers on a Miami highway).

Third, although people often say “the ‘proverbial’ rubber meets the road”, I’d say that’s a misstatement because the phrase doesn’t qualify as a proverb – a phrase or sentence that has become a common saying, and generally elucidates some truth. Examples here include “there is no substitute for hard work” and “don’t count your chickens before they hatch.” To make sure I got it right, Richard Nordquist the Grammar Guide on About.com confirmed (on a Sunday afternoon, no less – thank you, Richard) that “the phrase points to a condition or circumstance (the heart of the matter — to use another idiom) but by itself doesn’t appear to express a general truth or offer a nugget of (apparent) wisdom.” And despite being a metaphor, this same logic disqualifies it as an adage as well.

Yes, time to tackle something else…

John Paul Basile of Rubber Road Marketing

If you don’t know where to start, start at the beginning…

The goal this month is simple: to give shape to the 2.0 landscape. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and while it’s fascinating to jump from site-to-site and blog-to-blog, it all usually ends badly for me (i.e., I just spent 3 hours reading about some cool stuff, but am I really all the wiser for it? To be honest, I just did it again – spyfu? are you serious).

I’m going to start with basic terms – like SEO, SEM, Keywords, PPC, ROI, widgets, newsfeeds, sharing tools, etc. – and create a framework for the players (think job descriptions). I may or may not want to do what the experts do when all is said and done, but I want to understand it and be able to speak it coherently. To the extent I can, I’m going to leave the technical stuff to the webmasters; but you’ve got to be a Renaissance Man to cover all the bases, loving science as well as the arts, to really get it.

1. I’m going to start with Google’s very own starter guide: Search Engine Optimization Starter Guide which was released recently by the grand masters for small businesses to debunk some of the mystery. Bloggers everywhere are raving, and it should make anyone feel “caught up” by familiarizing yourself with it now.
2. I’m also going to finish reading The New Rules of Marketing & PR: How To Use News Releases, Blogs, Podcasting, Viral Marketing & Online Media To Reach Buyers Directly, by David Scott; it’s an exciting look at how technology and the internet are shaping marketing, blurring the lines between the disciplines and recognizing that the real power and influence on the web lies with people and social media.
3. Finally, despite what Mr. Scott writes, I’m going to try to create functional buckets of work product, as if i were about to pitch a client and were to explain the possible areas of attack; blurred or not, I still need a pitch/proposal.

Til next time…

The journey begins...

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign***

I’m starting a new journey – calling it “off road” – to get caught up with marketing 2.0 and how to best integrate the technology within the arts, entertainment and sports communities.

Happy Motoring everyone

John Paul Basile at Rubber Road Marketing