Big news today.
Not George Bush's new approach to the Iraq situation.
Or the Bank of Englands base rate hike.
But Mr. David Beckham.
Now, I'm not the worlds greatest fan of football, however, Beckham's probably the most famous sports person in the world, and has moved to the most lucrative sporting market in the world. So you've got to take note.
He must be the biggest sporting brand on the planet. He'd certainly rank as one of the biggest brands in Britain; more awareness and clearer perceptions than any brand I've worked for anyway.
Endorsements with David Beckham are no longer endorsements, they're copromotions. If you sign him, the balance of power is not with you.
Imagine you take the Corrie sponsorship when Cadbury's bow out. You have to stick with it for a long period of time before anyone realises its you, and not a chocolate bar. Now, take David Beckham - he's had so many endorsements that when you see him, there's conflicting top-of-mind information coming through. Do you think of Adidas (or Nike - confusion reigns for me with most athletes), or Gillette, or Brylcreme, or Police shades. Nothing stands out, so the only benefit you get is when he's on the TV ad or the poster in your shop. Its a lot of money for media you have to pay for anyway.
Sure, during that spot, you're getting all the positive Beckham associations rubbing off on you, but wouldn't it be better if you invested in creating your own perceptions over time.
Beckham endorsement thus looks like a quick fix for a brand who needs a rapid positive gain in perceptions.
Unless you're in the US, where people have heard of him, but aren't fully into the David/Victoria powerbrand.
He's the biggest star in soccer.
They want to push soccer to the masses.
Cue lots of exposure.
Cue some really neat brand endorsements untainted by the perceptions we've all spent 10 years building up.
How much money does he need though. I'm skint, with a broken car and leaking windows. Lend us a few grand Dave.