Today, Seth Godin called into question State Farm’s promotion of MLB’s Home Run Derby:
Promotions work when they’re seen as generous or unique or tied into our needs and dreams. They also work as brand builders when they’re so ubiquitous we associate the brand with the event itself. But if I had written “Allstate” instead of “State Farm,” would you have realized the error? Doubtful.
Last week, Jeffry wrote a related post on Citi’s naming rights purchase for the Mets’ ballpark.
On the other side of the debate, one could side closer with Ben Rogers, who left this comment with JP:
In the SportsCenter age, you’ll get a couple of mentions per night on the most rabidly watched show for professional 18- to 49-year-old males. Owning the things that get talked about can make more sense than advertising on the channels where people talk.
I’m ad-immune from TV commercials (thanks, TiVo), radio (thanks, XM), newspaper ads (thanks, Yahoo! News) and phone (don’t even have a home phone, suckas).
Sometimes the only way to get your brand in front of me is by pounding your name in my head. That doesn’t mean I’ll choose you.
Here’s the $400-million dilemma: I shop on value (not on price – there’s a big difference).
If I’ve never heard of your brand before, I have Yelp or Wesabe or fillintheblankwithanytoolyouwant to help.
Trey Reeme 
3 responses to “Marketing, schmarketing: I’m immune.”
It’s not sponsorships in general that I struggle with. The biggest problem I have with Citi’s $400 million is that it’s getting spent in one market. The investment yields little national exposure.
I’d bet Citi could spend $400 million and yield a more exposure with a creative (albeit more complex) series of sponsorships.
@JP Most banks have a limited geographic footprint, so I’m not sure “little national exposure” is what banks are looking for with a stadium sponsorship.
Even if they were, they’d probably argue that every time a game is televised back to the away team’s home town, that they’re getting exposure.
I worked for a company once that had money to spend on advertising, and while sampling was far more effective, they had to spend the money on radio and tv even though it was easy to show that it had zero impact on actual sales. It was all about ego, not money.
Of course the best example is Harley Davidson, which did no advertising and had people tattoo their brands on their body.
Still tattoo free,
Winter