Yesterday a few guys asked why Coke and Safaricom left Churchill Live. According to the ‘best’ gossip site in the country … it was a money issue. PAUSE! We’re talking about Safaricom here; their media spend for Niko Na Safaricom was well over 100 million shillings. Branding on Churchill was a drop in the ocean. At around 3 million a season, that’s nothing. With Coke, let’s not get into the math. It’s a global brand.
After talking to marketers, they told MM that the main reason the advertisers pulled out of Churchill was ‘cause it was BRINGING in NOTHING, kinoti, kiwaru, NAZZING to the table marketers like to call ‘Brand equity’. See Safcom and Coke are looking for Brand love. By being on Churchill, they want guys to be persuaded that Safcom is the ONLY network and it has the best products and you should use them. Coke wants you to think drinking CoCa Cola products is the ONLY way to quech your thirst.
Churchill brings NAZZING to these brands, so why should they still waste their cash on the show?? I hear someone shout ‘But he has numbers’ well he HAS numbers, but those numbers can only work for a brand that’s seeking awareness, not acceptance. A new brand would THRIVE on Churchill live, because you want people to ‘Jua’ UKO!
Brand managers are veery KEEN on ROI (Return on investment) media houses that have a higher ROI get more sponsors (Kiss, Classic 105, Capital). For brands, being seen and heard is not the only thing, being seen, loved and THEN bought! Is what they’re interested in, so if you can’t deliver that. You get no sponsor.
Class dismissed ….
Comments