With tennis star Maria Sharapova the latest in a line of sports stars to lose lucrative sponsorships as a result of a failed drugs test, it appears brands are taking a firmer stance with the individuals they sign up to represent them. The trend is evident in South Africa too.
Nike was the first brand to distance itself from Sharapova after she revealed she was taking the drug Meldonium, also known as Mildronate – which was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s banned substance list in January this year.
Swiss watch brand TAG Heuer and Porsche then followed suit. TAG Heuer said in a statement: “Maria Sharapova was under contract with TAG Heuer until December 31 2015 and we had been in talks to extend our collaboration. In view of the current situation, the brand has suspended negotiations.”
A new era of brand reaction and crisis communications is emerging. “Tolerance and listening to excuses have changed drastically over the last 10 years,” says Franco Barocas, group MD of sponsorship marketing consultancy Openfield. “Brands have to take a stand, otherwise individuals will continue to take chances and push boundaries and get away with it.”
Where brands would previously remain in the background and try to keep their names out of the story, today brands are actively involved in responding to crisis management. Barocas cites the old Team Barloworld cycling team, which competed professionally between 2003 and 2009, and the stern stance the South African industrial brand management company took in warning the team that if any of them were found guilty of doping, the whole sponsorship would be pulled. True to its word, when one team member tested positive for a banned substance in the 2008 Tour de France, Barloworld withdrew its sponsorship.
The move was indicative of the direction that the industry as a whole was taking at the time – and if anything, its stance has only toughened subsequently. Brands, says Barocas, have been forced to become reactive in times of crises – following scandals with the likes of Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, FIFA and the IAAF. These will undoubtedly have a commercial impact on sports sponsorships as brands will be more cautious in future.
“Marketers have to stand firm on the issue, as the brand’s name is far more important than any association it may have,” he concludes.
The big take-out: Brands involved in sports sponsorships are adopting a zero tolerance approach to offenders and are getting actively involved in crisis management.