The operators of the large domed sporting stadium in Melbourne’s docklands are finding out the hard way that sponsorship is a two-way street, especially when it involves naming rights.
Last October, Abu Dhabi-based airline Etihad was announced by the venue operators as the new naming rights sponsor for the stadium formerly known as Telstra Dome.
But as late as last week, with the pre-season competition well underway, principal tenant the AFL was still refusing to call the stadium by its new name — “Etihad Stadium” — because of a dispute about details including pourage rights and club stadium deals.
Listening to Melbourne talkback radio this morning, you could easily be forgiven for thinking that it had been officially renamed “whatever-it’s-called stadium”. People are actually using phrases like that not only because they are confused about the status of the name, but also because they sense a problem of fit.
The trouble with this sponsorship isn’t just that Etihad is relatively unfamiliar to Australian consumers; it had at least been advertising here for some time before the sponsorship was announced. Nor is it necessarily because people are tentative about how to pronounce the name, see the name as too “foreign”, or are unsure of what line of business it’s in, although all may be contributing factors.
The main issue is that the images of the operators of the “what’s-it dome” and the AFL are potentially undermined by a naming-rights sponsorship that doesn’t “take” or just doesn’t feel right. Does Etihad feel like a natural sponsor of sport, more particularly Australian sport, and especially a Melbourne sporting stadium principally known for hosting AFL (leaving aside Andre Rieu concerts)? Well, we know so little about the brand, that’s a hard call to make and consumers are naturally tentative about it, especially when the name change and sponsorship haven’t been promoted.
Sporting and cultural organisations often overlook the two-way nature of the sponsorship and co-branding process in the rush to find dollars to fund their activities. But they do so at their peril.
Sure, the sponsor gains exposure but also leverages brand awareness and brand associations from the team, event or cause it sponsors.
But, intentionally or not, the sponsored entity doesn’t only get the sponsor’s money: it also acquires parts of the sponsor’s brand equity, and that can have downsides as well as upsides.
For example, there’s no doubt that Collingwood, historically associated with the eponymous tough, working-class, inner-Melbourne suburb, acquires a certain air of prestige and professionalism through its sponsorship by luxury car brand Lexus. It’s fair to say that Collingwood’s principal sponsor, Emirates, took some time to be accepted by the Magpie faithful, but its credentials as a sporting sponsor were strengthened around the same time through other sporting sponsorships, including the Melbourne Cup, the Rugby World Cup and Arsenal in the English Premier League.
The “yada-yada stadium” problem is also being faced by the smaller indoor venue in Melbourne’s SwanStreet/Melbourne Park precinct, previously Vodafone Arena. During 2008, it was rebadged overnight as Hisense Arena without any apparent fanfare. I first became aware of it when I drove past the stadium and saw the signage.
Like most consumers, my first reaction was “Hi-what?”. News eventually filtered out that it was a Chinese electronics brand new to the Australian market. A prominent arena sponsorship seems to me like a very strange way for an unknown brand to spend a whole lot of marketing dollars in a new country.
I’ve since shopped for a TV, microwave, fridge, printer and phone and I’ve never seen a Hisense product. I teach advertising and I can’t recall seeing a single TV commercial or print ad anywhere for Hisense. In other words, the Hisense brand simply has no traction in the Australian consumer marketplace.
My observations suggest that many consumers are uncomfortable using the name Hisense Arena simply because they don’t know the brand. For many, just that lack of familiarity and salience of the sponsor’s brand could well mean an event staged at Hisense Arena sounds less accessible and less appealing than one staged at Vodafone Arena.
And that’s potentially damaging for the stadium operator, for sports and promoters who use the stadium and for Melbourne’s enviable sporting and entertainment reputation.
- Dr Stephen Downes is a market researcher and lectures in the postgraduate advertising program at RMIT University.
I think to seriously suggest people are not going to a venue because of its unfamiliar name is ludicrous. This is like saying ‘I am not going to read this journal because its name is somewhat associated with the late Steve Urwin, not that there is anything wrong with Steve, but you get my point.
It’s somewhat of a circular debate. The whole point of Hisense and Etihad naming the stadiums is so people become more familiar with the brands. I can’t vouch for Hisense just yet, but Etihad is a massive sport sponsor (Formula 1, golf). I think you will see more from them in Australia sport in the coming years.
I can’t explain why you are yet to see any Hisense brands in the shops you visit, maybe they are yet to hit Cash Convertors stores, but seriously this is alarming as it defeats the purpose of spending on the naming rights. Not that all sponsorships are rational, but I think if a brand is going to spend millions on a six year sponsorship they would make sure they had product in the market.
Getting traction for your venue naming right can be a challenge. Sometimes it’s because the media do not want to acknowledge the corporate backer because of a non-commercial charter (ABC & SBS) or because perhaps a programs is backed by competing brand. There is also the traditionalist journo, clinging on to a bygone era, ‘it will always be Lang Park to me’ (wipes tear from eye), that refuse to acknowledge the corporate backers name. I recall another case with an AFL clubs referring to Telstra Dome as just ‘The Dome’ because it had a rival telco as a sponsor.
I spoke with marketer Harold Mitchell last week and he mentioned the success of the Colonial Stadium deal he brokered way back then and how it moved Colonials brand awareness from 3% to something astronomical.
One thing about stadium naming rights as a sponsorship option, you won’t find your stadium tarnishing your brand name by being out on the grog till all hours.
That’s my ten cents worth anyway.
It’s called Docklands, unless you’re a Footscray supporter in which case it’s Doglands. Same with all the other footy grounds – Kardinia Park, Princess Park, Windy Hill, Football Park, Stadium Australia, etc. I’m also glad to hear the Sheffield Shield returning to its correct name, even by the white shoe brigade at Cricket Australia.