One last Coast to Coast related post, this time event marketing related!

Last year the Scottish Coast to Coast was sponsored by Nokia, as part of their outdoor event series which also included the Windsor Triathlon, Thames Swim and Royal Parks Foundation Half Marathon – very much something for everyone. This was a good way to reach Nokia’s target market (and beyond), showcasing specific outdoors and fitness related features of their products.

This was good for the event too, as it extended it’s reach with a strong marketing drive from Nokia behind the event and the series. This included videos with race and training tips from (eventual winner) Bruce Duncan and other athletes involved in the individual events on a dedicated website (which has now sadly disappeared) and interlinked with the individual event websites. Interestingly the series included a bit of blogger outreach, some of which fell a bit flat which is an interesting case study in itself.

I’m sure Bruce will be delighted with me posting this, but the video shows some of the things the Nokia Outdoor Series website had to offer.

As such, the Scotland Coast to Coast event website was heavily Nokia branded last year, with interactive maps  showing the route (and showcasing Nokia’s Ovi maps), as well as the training tips videos and links through to the Outdoor Series website.

This year Nokia had absolutely no involvement whatsoever, so the 2011 race website has lost all the Nokia branding, bar some legacy branding on the route map, and there was no Nokia branding to be found anywhere out on the race route.

Despite this, I’ve noticed that a large number of people, including some competitors, spectators, supporters, charities and the  media were all still referring to the race as the Nokia Coast to Coast.

This is pretty fascinating for me, as having looked at event and team sponsorship for my Honours dissertation many moons ago when the Rat Race was starting out, some of my findings were still pretty relevant in this arena.

Without regurgitating that entire 20,000 word tome, a key point from looking at sponsor recognition and recall included the fact that title sponsorship of an event is pretty inconsequential unless properly supported by marketing efforts from both the event & brand. Keith Byrne of the North Face suggested the actual sponsorship itself should only be seen as a part payment for the marketing effort needed to activate that sponsorship.

Now this may not sound very earth-shattering in the world of sponsorship, but for niche sports like adventure racing I still don’t see too much evidence of sponsors properly activating sponsorships to get better returns.

Maybe for outdoor companies, the traditional sponsors of these events, they feel that association is enough to get their required return. For companies with a less obvious fit as sponsors, such as Nokia, the need to support the sponsorship activity is a bigger requirement.

Nokia clearly activated their sponsorship well, and in sponsoring an event in its first year when it became an instant classic (sold out with 1000 competitors in year 1, 1000+ again this year) they’ve enjoyed the legacy of their initial naming rights.

In recent years Adidas have got involved in sponsoring adventure races and teams, and with nice looking websites and tie-ins with particular product lines, they’ve backed up their involvement and shown they don’t just do streetwear. However, I’ve not seen much other evidence of activation outside the adventure racing sphere (would be interested to see examples if there are any?), although having James Cracknell on board to race the Open Adventure Coast to Coast certainly gained some column inches.

What both Nokia and Adidas have managed to do with their title sponsorship of these events is form a significant naming bond in the first running of an event. And this is particularly evident with Adidas sponsoring the 2nd Open Adventure Coast to Coast event, while the name was mentioned everywhere in press about the event, there didn’t seem to be the same brand association with competitors as Nokia enjoyed.

So for events it seems there is some sort of first mover advantage for sponsors. Sponsoring the first year of an event might seem a risky strategy, it appears that if properly supported it could have a longer lasting impact than expected, even beyond the actual lifespan of the sponsorship itself.