Honestly, I almost NEVER pay attention to sponsors of events
at will – regardless of the medium through which I am viewing / participating
in them.
Personally, I’ve always found them annoying, and even tend
to openly mock them when watching something like a football or soccer game – I
simply CANNOT stand the continuous repetition over and over of ads for Miller
Lite, General Motors, etc etc.
In the ManU game I watched last night, for example, there
were sponsors ranging from GM, to Aon, to Verizon. By the end of the match, I
came to temporary loath all of them because they disturbed my experience, and force-fed
me repetition again and again – newsflash – I heard you the first time!
In the long term, their sponsorship will have no bearing on
my perceptions of any of the companies – as I simply try as best I can to tune
them out as background noise. However, their efforts NEVER make me want to buy
ANYTHING from them in the immediate, and rather annoy me for the entirety of
the event.
If I’m going to purchase something like a car (GM), or
insurance (Aon), my decision will be based on research and facts, not some
snap-decision ad.
Personally, I think that the soccer stations here need to do
the same thing they do in the UK – if the viewer is paying a fee for the
channel (i.e. cable, satellite), then there ARE NO COMMERCIALS! The players
simply wear their main sponsor on their uniforms, and there are ads around the
sides of the pitch – that's it. No interruptions, no breaks, no ads – period. In my view, the best sponsor for this sort of
event is the subtlest one – the one that gets out of the way and lets you enjoy
the game.
I agree with you about the influence sponsors have on purchasing decisions. I rely on quality and the reputation the company has to make my decisions.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can understand you distaste of the continuous ads that are pushed on shows of that sort. When each commercial break is the exact same ads as the previous break, sometimes in the same order, it becomes monotonous.
ReplyDeleteDo you not however see a benefit for these companies to get brand recognition from the ads. If you quit seeing an ad for a particular company for an extended period of time and then go purchase a product in their sector would you not have a bias in thinking they were a small time vendor? Even with the best reviews and referrals, if a company doesn't get their name out and about, people will not feel a level of security buying their product.
I would agree, Richard, that a company that doesn't "get their name out" risks irrelevancy. However, the method they use to expose themselves is what I question -- not the sheer action of doing so.
DeleteIs it really necessary for GM, Aon, Miller Lite, etc to literally badger the viewer until they're essentially beat into mental submission? Why can they not simply advertise on the uniforms, or along the side of the stadium, or just once or twice during the break?
It seems to me that they aren't able to strengthen their brand to the point that people will simply align with it (i.e. Apple, Google, Nike) -- rather they must be beaten into believing whatever the company wants to dispense -- hence the annoying repetition.
Can you think of any examples of an ad or sponsorship that you did like?
ReplyDeleteI think clever ads can be valuable. For example, the Chrysler ad during the past Superbowl sticks in my memory because of the message -- not because it was beaten into my brain 20+ times during the broadcast. That ad is a great example of how to do sponsorship and marketing properly -- in my opinion, of course. :-)
DeleteHere's a link to the ad: http://www.freep.com/article/20120206/BUSINESS0103/120206007/Script-Chrysler-s-2012-Super-Bowl-ad-s-Halftime-America-