When Tiger Woods made a statement apologising for “not being true to my values” he revealed the depth of his fraud. Just how ‘true’ are those ‘values’, Tiger? Given the extent to which he is now known to have flaunted them, clearly they are not true at all. Tiger, your values are the things that define your behaviour, not the things you think sponsors want to hear. You can’t just say them, you have to live them. If you are consistently doing bad things then you have bad values. Simple as that. When you’re aware of your actions (he wasn’t sleepwalking) to claim your values as anything else is just yet another lie.
Harsh? No. Prior to the scandal in 2001, Enron’s publicly stated values were “communication, respect, integrity, and excellence”. When their deception became apparent their Directors went to jail and corporate accounting practices were changed forever. That’s what can happen when you lie about your values.

You might argue that Enron, as a big business, is different. Except that it isn’t. Tiger Woods career earning surpassed the $1 billion mark earlier this year – that’s big business enough. The vast majority of that $1bn is made from sponsorship deals and the size and scope of those deals is, in part at least, based on those same ‘values’ that Tiger claimed to have, but didn’t. The deals get renewed and extended because the public respect Woods for the values he appears to project. Which we now know are a con. Of course in Tiger’s case, he hasn’t broken any laws (apart from a minor traffic offence) so he’s not going to jail. But it’s a form of branded deception nonetheless.

But in the short term, at least, Woods will survive this. Most of his sponsors will be too timid to drop him. But his ‘values’ will be forever changed. If he continues to claim the lie then his appeal to the public and to sponsors will spiral downwards and his longer-term prospects are certainly less good. Although were he to be honest at this point and declare his values for that they really are, then perhaps he could even end up prospering even more.

After all, it turns out he’s way more fun than we thought.

Jim Prior, Managing Partner, The Partners

Of course that’s a grossly unfair assessment of the reality of the Football League but it is the perception. And that, we all know, is what counts. Whilst sponsorship of the Football League might be said to be an honest, almost compassionate grass-roots affair, it is no more than the second division of football sponsorship. And Coca-Cola are very much a first division brand, so the fit was always a little uneasy, especially in comparison to their involvement with the World Cup, Rooney and Wembley Stadium.

But if these figures of £15-18m per year are correct, then it may yet be a good deal for someone. Compare the audience reach and exposure that such a sponsorship provides to the equivalent cost of advertising in conventional media and it starts to look like a good deal. And football fans, and sports fans in general, are generally a very loyal bunch and are quick to acknowledge the  brands that support their sport, and are open and willing to engage in some kind of dialogue with them. For the right kind of brand, it could be the perfect opportunity.

In my opinion, the right kind of brand for the Football League is a challenger brand looking to unseat, or at least unsettle, the major players. They shoudn’t be looking to say “we’re the best” so much as “we’re different” and the nature of their sponsorship should reflect that. Make a virtue of the Football League’s less glamourous positioning, celebrate playing for passion rather than prizes, be about football rather than Ferraris. Don’t just throw money at it and wonder why your brand always comes up second best.

Obama’s use of digital marketing in his charge for the White House has revolutionised how political campaigns will be run from here on in.

His electioneering trail saw him attract 2.2 million followers on Facebook, over one million on MySpace and over 100 million page views on YouTube. And of course there was the iPhone app.

But even more significantly, as it turned out, it was the tried and tested, much un-sexier tool of email marketing that really proved to be invaluable in galvanising support.

Obama managed to build a relationship with his followers online, which didn’t only help in his fundraising efforts, but also saw his supporters knocking on doors to drive more voters to register.

And it was not just a case of sending a mass email blast - they were personalised emails sent from local offices to maximise the relevance of their messages.

The campaign’s targeted approach was also amplified through the social community created on Obama’s official website which created over 200,000 events and initiated 35,000 groups during his two year push for presidency.

The success of his digital marketing strategy, led by the agency Blue State Digital, has now set a precedent in the way politicians market themselves.

From an industry perspective, Obama leapfrogged brand giants Apple and Nike to take the gong of Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year for 2008.

While it is not likely Tory leader David Cameron will bag himself any such UK-equivalent accolade, his party together with LBi will have to work hard and learn from the US election if it is to go anyway in emulating Obama’s success.

Camille Alarcon, reporter at Marketing Week

Now, Tesco does have a reputation for consistently setting market-leading value. In my book that makes it an excellent brand for a bank. There’s a fundamental marriage between what they are good at and what the market needs, which leads me to expect that they will deliver market-leading rates. I can’t really imagine that they’ve gone into this business with any idea other than that. Of course they have to deliver against that expectation – if they don’t the bank will fail and the overall brand positioning will be damaged too. But if they do deliver then they might change the game for everyone. The lazy, old-fashioned banks that conceal shoddy rates behind the veneer of advertising will have to start to deliver true value in their products, or lose their customers forever.

For other players entering the banking market I would say this: Be clear that you are doing so in order to deliver value to the market, not just because you’ve got a well-known brand. O2 and Vodafone could argue that banking is a commoditised marketplace not unlike the one in which their core businesses operate. They could claim, therefore, that their skills in micro-positioning are relevant and valuable to banking. I’d disagree. The banking sector is commoditised now because no one’s yet tried hard enough. I expect, someday soon, that to change.

Jim Prior is Managing Partner of The Partners

FirstGroup is having a go with the launch of the Greyhound bus brand into the UK. Initially, the service will travel between London and Portsmouth and Southampton. The company is going out with the strapline “The Greyhound has landed” and is selling on more than the cheap (average fare £7) ticket.

The press and outdoor imagery focuses on the sleek lines of the coach and the marketing messages will dwell on the expanded leg room. I’ve tried the seats and it’s definitely an improvement on previous coach experiences I’ve endured. There’s also free wi-fi and FirstGroup will also promote the environmental aspect of coach travel.

The branding has a nod to the US origins by naming each coach after women in well-known popular songs, for example Peggy Sue. However, FirstGroup is not going for the full-on stars and stripes marketing razzamatazz that it could’ve done, given the Greyhound’s profile in Hollywood films. Maybe, like other US brands, it’s aware that now is still not quite the time for triumphant Americanism, despite a resurgence of some goodwill thanks to Obama’s election win.

FirstGroup seems to have everything in place for good run at the market. It has a brand with high awareness, definable service differences from competitors and a clear idea of its target market, which it says is mainly car owners fed up with the stress of driving and who would rather someone else took the strain.

And yet there are certain hurdles to clear. There is still a stigma to coach travel, despite the best efforts of National Express, with the perception that it is a mode of travel for students and the less well-off, I’ve got friends, in the Green party no less, who would not countenance it.

As the Divine Comedy sang : “Take the national express when your life’s in a mess/ It’ll make you smile/All human life is here/ From the feeble old dear to the screaming child”

All human life was there last time I took a Greyhound, from the man just released from prison after serving a term for manslaughter to the couple of young runaways and the wife looking for her missing husband. But last time I took the Greyhound I was jobless myself. A more recent trip in the UK on a National Express coach in the depths of winter was a fairly gruelling experience too.

Interestingly, at the launch press conference, Greyhound fielded a query about carrying Portsmouth football fans with good humour and said sports fans would be important to business. I’m not so sure I’d be happy to book myself on and find myself surrounded by Pompey’s finest.

I think success is going to be down to word of mouth and sampling. It is a brand with great pedigree, pardon the pun, and customers may initially be attracted just to say they’ve taken a ride on a Greyhound, much as people travelled to the reopened St Pancras Eurostar terminus just to look at the building and drink at the champagne bar - to have an experience. FirstGroup should know if it has a success on its hands within the year.

It’s no surprise to see brands like Apple, Virgin and Google consistently called out by business leaders as those they most admire. The rational and emotional reasons behind this are clear for all to see. But what seems less clear to many people is how they hold these brands in almost religious regard, as though their success is defined by some supernatural divinity, and not through the leadership and actions of mere mortals such as themselves, which, for supposedly smart people, is plain daft.

In reality, the engine behind the success of this revered trinity is no more than a basic business discipline. But it is one that has been consistently unrecognised, undervalued and underexploited by the majority of business leaders. It is the ability to think differently, to think imaginatively, and to think big. It’s what I would define as creativity.

So, we decided to study creativity in business by talking to 300 senior executives in the UK. The good news is they recognise that it is important. 96% of them told us it’s integral to business success. As many as 40% say it’s a more valuable source of advantage than knowledge or efficiency (management consultancies, beware!). Great. It seems that maybe everyone gets it after all.

But no. They don’t. Because despite this widespread acknowledgement of its value, our research also shows that creativity goes largely unsupported in practice. Just 10% of our respondents discuss it at board level. More than 40% say there is no ownership of it anywhere in their business. They are not investing time, energy or money in making their organisations more creative. So, without any action to support the belief, it should be no surprise that there are not more organisations out there like Apple.

And in my view this has to change. Not simply for the sake of business success but for the sake of the wider world. I believe that we are at a point in time where significant change in the relationship between business and society is inevitable. The organisations that prosper in future will be those that solve the problems that matter most to people, not just those that generate most short-term profit. The demand of the future will be for radical, brave innovation not for more of more-or-less the same.

We are at a critical inflection point in commercial history, poised to move from the selfish knowledge economy of the 20th Century to the more generous ideas economy of the 21st. If we are to solve the big issues that society faces, like climate change, natural resources, population growth, health, and social inequality, then we need a world driven not by supply chains, efficiencies, and timeframes but one driven by creativity.

I’m optimistic that this will happen. In our research, 46% told us they would be happy to take increased responsibility for creativity in their business. So we can suppose that the problem isn’t a lack of willingness but of know-how. And that’s certainly the easier bridge to cross. Because despite its esoteric reputation, creativity can be taught. Despite its non-linear thought processes, it can be systemised. And, if all else fails, it can be outsourced. What’s needed now is a firm commitment from the leadership of organisations to put creativity into action, to embrace it as a fundamental strategic business tool that informs every decision and action. To make the first step forward into the new creative age.

Jim Prior is Managing Partner of The Partners

There are no sacred cows right now in newspaper publishing. The whole industry is wrestling with business models and rapid shifts in consumer behaviour driven by the pace of technical change.

The vision of a lazy Sunday, possibly hungover, flipping through all the papers and their respective supplements, is still appealing and hopefully still the weekend experience of many. But the increasingly bulky Saturday newspapers see their offerings last well into the next day while the web offers many other ways of engaging with lifestyle content and news.

The Observer also struggles because it is a standalone brand, unlike its quality rivals who carry through the branding of their weekday sister publications. It cannot benefit from any over-arching brand message or halo effect from The Guardian’s marketing, except when there is a cross-promotion.

Another problem for the quality Sundays is that they have no great web presence as their content is subsumed into their parent brands. News International is now preparing to launch a standalone Sunday Times website and its content and access model should be very interesting – is this where some form of paid-for content may appear?

The dusty shelves of newspaper limbo-land are laden with defunct national publications – many of which were published on Sunday, including News on Sunday and the Sunday Business.

It would be a surprise if The Observer joined them sooner than the beleaguered Independent on Sunday but it could be argued one is a business that has to justify a bottom line and maybe the other is a vanity project kept alive for influence (possibly even more so if Alexander Lebedev becomes involved).

However, that link could soon be broken. The National Preventative Health Task Force, which was handpicked by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has called for a complete ban on alcohol sponsorship in sport.

Predictably, rugby, cricket and football associations - heavily reliant on alcohol brands for revenue - have cried foul, claiming the ban could cost Aussie sports upwards of $300m.

Imagine if the same was to happen in the UK. Celtic, Rangers and Liverpool could be left with a huge hole in their finances as Carling and Carlsberg are forced to pull their shirt sponsorship while both Rugby codes would be left wanting as a number of official beers, title sponsors and “proud partners” were flushed from the sports.

For marketers too, a door to several valuable demographics would be slammed shut.

Is there an appetite in the UK to bar booze from the world of sport? Not, it seems, at Government level. Provisional and conditional Government backing of the alcohol industry’s Campaign for Smarter Drinking is a sign that No.10 is prepared to allow the industry a little time and space to prove it can be an affective partner in the battle to beat misuse

It can also be seen as an indication Westminster is not yet ready to duplicate its 2003 ban on cigarette advertising and big tobacco’s sponsorship of the sport.

However, rumblings can still be heard in the corridors of power. The Health Select Committee, a cross-party group of MPs currently in the advanced stages of an inquiry into alcohol misuse, has been zeroing in on the role of marketing and whether it encourages irresponsible consumption. Sponsorship,in particular the near unrestricted access drinks brands have to under-18s, has come under the spotlight.

Stephen Hesford, MP for Wirral West and a member of the Committee, although keen to stress that he cannot “pre-empt the Committee’s findings”, told Marketing Week that more stringent measures have to be considered.

“I can say that from the evidence I have heard so far, the option to ban or severely restrict the sponsorship of sporting events by the alcohol industry or advertising by the same, is something that has to be very seriously considered,” he says.

Strong words and a warning for drinks marketers as well as the world of sport.

Hesford and no doubt others at Portcullis House are not alone in seeking restrictions. The very vocal Alcohol Concern has long held the opinion that the UK should follow France’s lead in banning alcohol sponsorship in sport.

Chief Executive Don Shenker, says France’s example is proof that sport can live happily ever after alcohol.

“A complete ban on alcohol sponsorship of sport and music events will put a stop to alcohol companies associating the glamour of sport with drinking alcohol. High levels of teen drinking and alcohol harm cannot be allowed to grow unfettered,” he told Marketing Week.

Shenker makes a good point. Sport can survive when high value sponsors are forced top pull out. A number of sports previously reliant on big tobacco patronage cried foul when cigarette sponsorship was banned, but all have survived. Financial services firms have moved into cricket, betting firms into snooker and even Rugby League has faced the new reality, with men’s grooming brands replacing Regal and Silk Cut.

That is not to say that sporting associations, clubs and drinks marketers should ready themselves for a ban just yet. With a likely change of Government but 10 months away, the present incumbents are unlikely to go legacy shopping in this area with no indication from Tory Central Office that Cameron and cohorts are ready to confront the issue head on.

But what do we mean when we say ‘appropriate price’? Are we referring to those £5 logo designs which one can’t even guarantee of their being original or taken from any clipart? In fact, there is a huge risk of wasting your money on logo designs which don’t look professional at all; rather, they look more like designed by a teenager who has no clue about business logos whatsoever.

However, there are online logo design companies who charge you very less and offer a lot many services than a freelance designer. This is because, an experienced logo designer must be a professional for sure and must know the tits and bits of creating a remarkable logo for you, while in an online logo design company, the chances of getting a wonderfully designed logo are far less. A professional logo designer, if charges you something around £1000 for your logo, he will definitely come up with something highly professional and something you can put up as your logo for years.

Always remember, a professional logo designer would not eat up your time and will give you minimum hassles, whereas, if you opt for a cheap logo design company, there are more chances of you waiting for your logo for the rest of your life.

I believe in the fact, you only get what you pay for. However, this is for you to decide whether you need a high end, expensive logo, designed by the best logo designer in town or you would get away with something in the range of let’s say £300 to £500 or even cheaper than that.

According to few top notch designers, these online logo design companies are a complete mess, which I don’t agree to, mainly because, these online logo design companies have a different target market altogether, they cater businesses with tight budgets and they can’t be taken away from the online world.

So if you are planning to take a plunge into the world of logo designers and logo design companies, make sure, you have done your homework beforehand. By homework, I meant, you should have done thorough research on different logo designers and logo design companies. Moreover, be very clear about your needs and specifications. But in any case, checking out designer’s work is a must. Cheap logo design companies or cheap freelance logo designers, who design a logo for £5 can’t be banned because there is a market for it, but I believe there are more disadvantages attached to them, so you need to analyze those and make your decision, even if you have a tight budget.

This is guest post from Ben Johnson of Logoinn, custom logo design service provider based in UK.

The problem for us is that the conventional approach of much advertising in the sector seems to be essentially negative and indeed exploitative - with audiences being bludgeoned through feelings of guilt and horror into parting with their credit card details, or to sign up for information or to help out.

Two of the worst offenders are Barnardo’s and the NSPCC; while we accept that these tactics have indeed reaped the benefits of greater visibility and engendering public support, these charities and others who use the same ad strategy are risking a backlash from a UK public which can’t stomach the tales of woe and hardship that are presented to it.

Wouldn’t it be a pleasant surprise if a charity told us some positive news for a change, or at least stop surrounding all their messages within a context of extreme negativity? We believe that our own work with Action for Children suggests that another way is possible.

Our spots for AfC featured real kids talking about their lives, but focussed instead on how the children were recovering from their experiences. By being forward-facing, and addressing what the charity actually did rather than the abuse suffered by the children, the adverts were able to engage the audience rather than shock them.

Early figures suggest that our approach has worked: 20 per cent of respondents said they would consider donating to the charity, and ad awareness levels reached nine per cent - which is a great result for a brand with only one per cent spontaneous awareness prior to launch. Encouragingly, donations to the charity spiked, as did conversions on the site for fostering and adoption.

And we don’t think that we and AfC are alone in rethinking our approach, as other organisations have also begun to soften their advertising - Oxfam’s ‘Humankind’ campaign from last year is another example of a more upbeat and positive take as is last year’s ‘Creature Discomforts’ campaign from Leonard Cheshire.

We’re confident that what we’re doing is right for the client, the public and those that the charities are trying to help. What do you think?

Steve Grime is creative partner at Baby Creative