In this forum, numerous examples have been cited that Indian Subcontinent is the major revenue generators for the game of cricket. In times of competition, sponsors will look for a deal in which air-time during the match is not sold to advertisements with such highly popular cricketers endorses their rival company. For e.g. in 2003 Sachin Tendulkar was endorsing Victor, a motorcycle from TVS, which was official sponsor Hero Honda's competitor; Saurav Ganguly was endorsing Coca-Cola, official sponsor Pepsi's competitor; and Rahul Dravid was endorsing Samsung, official sponsor LG Electronics’ competitor.
There would be no motive for any company to organize such an enormous events if they cannot get desired marketing. So it was ICC’s obligation to put such rules in the contract of players so that they can rake in sponsors.
Players may have some ongoing contracts with other companies and such clause of ICC may breach them. Therefore there is a conflict between freedom of players and ICC to protect sponsorship to make financial success. But as sponsoring such huge events calls for multi millions or billions of investments from sponsors, some legal protection becomes necessary for them.
Besides players having deal with competitors, there is also the problem of some rival company without officially sponsoring the event get in publicity using the events. ICC had also made some rules against such marketing techniques. The most famous case which I remember is use of catch line by Pepsi “Nothing Official about it” during Cricket World Cup 1996. This was direct attempt by Pepsi to mock Coca Cola the official sponsors of world cup. ICC filed the case against HPCL, Britannia and Philips India for running the commercials based on World cup for their products.
Thus these all are some of the marketing issues which companies face while sponsoring an event.
Thanks
Tanvi Garg(u109161)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Get your KSA’s in place first- then think about negotiation
I would like to see this episode from a different angle. From the posts so far, it seems that most believe that only heroes (since they have the power) can bargain.
I say why shouldn’t they bargain? It’s not power. It’s due to the sheer talent and skills that they possess. The thing that we learn from cricketers is that negotiation power comes to an individual if he has been able to carve out a special place for himself. One needs to strive hard to get it and when you have achieved it, you have every right to work in your best interests and not let anyone encroach upon it. If we are a novice or with only few years of experience, we generally do not have the power to transact with our employer. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. What qualifies us to transact and debate? The point to take away home is that we will in a position to arbitrate and negotiate only when our employer feels that we are a priced resource for the company.
I feel the players are justified in refusing to sign the ICC contract. The relationship of the players with the ICC and BCCI is with regards to playing of cricket. Apart from that there is nothing wrong if a player is endorsing a particular brand which might be of a competitive sponsor since it is no way related to the game of cricket. Successful people are able to leverage themselves and they have every right to do so till the time it is not in conflict with the interests of the organization.
Do heroes have it easy...
Perhaps the oldest example of protection of IPR that one can come across is the famous story of Eklavya and Dronacharya from the epic Mahabharata. Eklavya was refused admission to Dronacharya’s ashram. Determined as Eklavya was, he resumed aggressive archery practice under the idol of Dronacharya. Once travelling with Arjuna, his favourite disciple, Dronacharya heard a dog barking in the forest and on finding it, they saw that its mouth had been pierced with arrows. Seeing such an extraordinary exhibition of archery, the two went in search of the archer and found out that it was Eklavya. Dronacharya demanded gurudakshina from Eklavya in exchange of the art he had learned from him. Eklavya had to part with his right thumb as the fees and an outstanding archer got incapacitated for the rest of his life. This can safely be taken as an example of protection of business, which was archery in the above mentioned case and was supposed to be limited only to the royal scions. Though independently developed, knowledge was taxed even then.
The next example that comes to my mind is of the famous Taj Mahal. The eighth wonder of the world can only be described as exquisite and beautiful. But few of us know that the hands of the workers involved in the monument’s construction were cut so that such a work of art could never be recreated.
Thus, the legal attribution to IPR is more of a recent phenomenon.
When we consider the case of Indian cricketers, more than 90% of the cricketing revenues come from the sub-continent with BCCI being the richest cricketing body in the world. Indian cricketers, as has already been mentioned in the previous posts, enjoy demigod status in the country. With so much money riding on a few individuals, the cricketers had immense bargaining power and hence refused to sign the contract. Also, it is not difficult to imagine the mayhem it would have caused had India not participated in the championship.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Is it only about ICC contracts??
Cricket is a religion in India. The public sentiments that are associated with the game are paramount. People here follow the game not only on the field, but off the field too. Cricketing heroes are turned into demi-gods. With such a massive craze for the game, it is imperative that the stakes associated with the game too reach superlative heights.
It is this background that makes India the eye candy of world cricket. Its share in the cricketing revenues all over the world is very high. Most of this money comes from sponsorship deals, endorsement, telecast rights etc. Thus for the ICC as well as BCCI, Indian cricket is like the hen that lays golden eggs. Due to this, contracts, sponsorship deals, television broadcasting rights etc have always been issues of interest for the authorities and perennial source of conflict.
Considering the issue under discussion, we can look in it from the players as well as the Boards’ perspectives. I think the crux lies of the issue lies in the fact that BCCI signed an contract with ICC on the above terms without taking the commitments of the individual players in consideration. The BCCI in India has many times ignored players’ benefits for other gains, and this was one such instance. Regarding the players point of view, they have full right to enter into endorsements with corporate who approach them, unless they have a contract with BCCI forbidding them to do so, and unless these endorsements affect their performances on field (which is like breaching the unwritten promise made out to millions of fans; at least the fans may think in this way!!). Also, the contract terms state a period of +/- 30 days prior to the tournament, which has already commenced. So breaking their individual contracts to agree with ICC terms, the players risk chances of legal action from the companies they are in contract with on the first hand. As far as ICC is concerned, they should have forwarded the contract earlier, but allowing the BCCI to negotiate its terms with the players. ICC also cannot claim that the players have done anything wrong. One interesting point to be cited here is, the contract negotiation with other boards were not so complex as compared to Indian players. It shows employers will milk only those parties from where they have the maximum chances of earnings!!! It just makes us as audience wonder, is the issue only about signing contracts or is it a larger money game??
As far as negotiating ability is concerned, the players are having an advantage not only because of their stature or the following they command, but also that they haven’t done any wrong by entering into individual contract, and cannot be sued on legal terms by the ICC as well as the BCCI. Apart from legal terms, they can be barred from the tournament, but the Boards are well aware of the consequences they will have to endure from the masses for keeping out the players, especially the Big Three (Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly)
Ninad Joshi (U109030)
It is this background that makes India the eye candy of world cricket. Its share in the cricketing revenues all over the world is very high. Most of this money comes from sponsorship deals, endorsement, telecast rights etc. Thus for the ICC as well as BCCI, Indian cricket is like the hen that lays golden eggs. Due to this, contracts, sponsorship deals, television broadcasting rights etc have always been issues of interest for the authorities and perennial source of conflict.
Considering the issue under discussion, we can look in it from the players as well as the Boards’ perspectives. I think the crux lies of the issue lies in the fact that BCCI signed an contract with ICC on the above terms without taking the commitments of the individual players in consideration. The BCCI in India has many times ignored players’ benefits for other gains, and this was one such instance. Regarding the players point of view, they have full right to enter into endorsements with corporate who approach them, unless they have a contract with BCCI forbidding them to do so, and unless these endorsements affect their performances on field (which is like breaching the unwritten promise made out to millions of fans; at least the fans may think in this way!!). Also, the contract terms state a period of +/- 30 days prior to the tournament, which has already commenced. So breaking their individual contracts to agree with ICC terms, the players risk chances of legal action from the companies they are in contract with on the first hand. As far as ICC is concerned, they should have forwarded the contract earlier, but allowing the BCCI to negotiate its terms with the players. ICC also cannot claim that the players have done anything wrong. One interesting point to be cited here is, the contract negotiation with other boards were not so complex as compared to Indian players. It shows employers will milk only those parties from where they have the maximum chances of earnings!!! It just makes us as audience wonder, is the issue only about signing contracts or is it a larger money game??
As far as negotiating ability is concerned, the players are having an advantage not only because of their stature or the following they command, but also that they haven’t done any wrong by entering into individual contract, and cannot be sued on legal terms by the ICC as well as the BCCI. Apart from legal terms, they can be barred from the tournament, but the Boards are well aware of the consequences they will have to endure from the masses for keeping out the players, especially the Big Three (Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly)
Ninad Joshi (U109030)
Out in the "Open"
At the outset I feel the agreement proposed by ICC is very unfair. Though a lot of people would feel that the reason for Indian players not signing the contract would lie in personal gains; a thought needs to be spared for the team sponsor, which is given to the highest bidder to the BCCI. The contract to the team sponsor is a long term agreement of more than a couple of years. The then team sponsor, Sahara had bought all the commercial rights for a whopping Rs. 100 crores for the whole team which also comprised, “the exclusive use of the players to promote their corporate image as well.” So it is very unjust to bind the players by an agreement for endorsing the company specified by ICC for the period of the tournament as well as 30 days prior and after the tournament. Though the BCCI was compensated with an amount of Rs. 102 million out of the humongous amount of Rs. 550 million which ICC was getting for the purpose of being the title sponsor of the event, the players were getting a raw deal from the contract. This clearly portrays the power games that are played at the highest levels. But the players’ concerns being voiced by the then Indian skipper and Sachin Tendulkar turned the tide in favour of the players in the end.
Similarly taking cue from this incident, the software industry has a lot to learn in relation to open source coding, though being a very useful and efficient learning tool, becomes a very difficult sector to defend on IPR issues. Even though it can be claimed by companies that their training has developed the employees’ competence, they cannot say that it exclusively brought about the skills and thus claim stake in the product. Seeing from the organisation’s perspective, I wonder whether blocking of the softwares available on the public domain assisting in creation of products which can pose as direct competitors, would be a logical step to take. For example the faceoff between Recording Industry Association of America(RIIA) against Napster which is a company dealing in ASP,an Internet service that enables users to create their own private libraries of sound recordings.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Money talks
We all know there is a huge amount of money involved in cricket, especially in India. Top players like Sachin, Dhoni and Yuvraj attract huge sums of money for endorsements. It so happens that some companies cannot afford to pay such a huge amount to these players, which leaves them with few alternate options.
They may opt for lower paid stars like Dinesh Karthik or Suresh Raina, who are young upcoming players and there is a possibility for them to reach great heights in the future, in which case, long contracts negotiated at cheaper rates now is a real bargain.
A second option is to sponsor whole teams as opposed to players, and not Team India, but Ranji teams, in which players from respective regions are part of as a rule. Take the example of NECC sponsoring the Mumbai ranji squad. For a bargain price, they not only get Sachin for an advertisement, they also get the likes of Zaheer Khan, Ajit Agarkar and Wasim Jaffer. Other examples would be Zandu Balm sponsoring the Mumbai Indians, Boost with Karnataka State Cricket Association (for Dravid and Kumble) or Kingfisher with most of the teams in the IPL.
The last remaining backdoor is to approach the organizers of major tournaments like the Champions Trophy, which are organized by the ICC, but played by teams contracted by the cricket boards of respective nations. This involves less risk, since all major stars of different countries play, but more money. But at the same time it leads to a legal impasse of clashing contracts with different companies between players and organizers.
When such huge sums of money are involved, we see a mutual agreement being reached (eg the players playing without competing sponsors logos) for the sake of maintaining relations which are beneficial in the future (BCCI being the richest cricket board and Indian cricketers drawing the most viewers etc.)
Some of our friends may be partially right in pointing out that there is not much to learn from our 'Heroes' as such, since they are where they are, in a position to demand, bargain and hold their position in an impasse, but at the same time, we should also aim to reach the pinnacle of our careers like they have done, albeit without the fame and adulation, but high enough to be fought over by employers and caught in contract disputes in which we can call the shots, not be herded about like sheep by HR departments.
Who owns what?
As I mentioned in my previous post(Bargaining through Cricket), the people/heroes are in a better position to negotiate only when they are on a high, or they have stronger muscles to flex.
Continuing from where I left, in the first Dialectic Forum Discussion,in the ICC Vs Team India fiasco, the situation turned ugly because of the simple fact that BCCI is the member nation of the ICC test playing nations, and as per the ruling of the ICC, all the national boards have to abide by its rules and regulations.
Now, perhaps for the first time it came out in the open, that as per the prevailing situation and status of BCCI and ICC, the players which are playing for India(whom we consider as our heroes) are just the employees of BCCI , or, in other words they have been hired by BCCI to play for it. This is because, the functioning of BCCI is out of the purview of Sports ministry of India, which controls and promotes all other sports. So, the Team India was never Team India, it was perhaps team BCCI (or Team Jagmohan Dlamiya), which all of us realized only when this incident happened.
It must be reminded here, that the team INDIA played in ICC champions trophy without their sponsors' logos on the jerseys, so it is not just that our Heroes have won, perhaps there was a compromise between both the parties, with BCCI facilitating the deal. ICC wanted India to play, primarily because of the largest cricket playig nation(population of more than 1 Billion). So just amusing that ICC decided to step back just because team India was favorite to win that tournament or team had icons like sachin, dravid and ganguly, may not actually hold competely true. (Had that been the case, IPL wont have banned pakistani players in the 3rd edition).
Obviously players also wanted to play because a good performance adds to their 'brand value'.
Taking the perspective of marketers or the companies, this was a kind of catch 22 situation. SAHARA group which was the sponsor of national cricket team, had its commercial interests directly interjecting with the South African Airlines-which sponsored the ICC Champions trophy.Similar was the case with Samsung and LG, having their commercial interests vested in different parties. I opine that the decision by the sponsors of team India to let the players play in the tournament without wearing their logos was a brave as well as a long sighted decision. Just relinquishing the relations with the players on this ground would have been an imprudent and immature.
But what about the players? Have they got no right to use their brand values to make some quick buck. If that is the case, I think india will stop producing more Dhonis and Pathans, who come from very humble backgrounds and aspire to play cricket, not only because its a pride, but also they see a promising career as a brand endorser!
Cricketing fraternity can take lessons from other sports bodies in this regard.
Football world Cup 2006 in Germany has sponsors like Adidas and Coke, whereas players like Thiery Henry had Nike and pepsi as their sponsors, which directly had conflict of commercial interests.
What one needs to understand here is that which party can extend its control on what. ICC is holding an event, so the discretion of selecting sponsors lies with the ICC. On the other hand players are using their own image. If they play good, they will get highly paid, if they perfom bad, they will not get too many takers.
In this case, players should have a right in the sponsorships deal of the events, even if the player's performance was nothing to talk about, because it is these players only who make this event hit/flop and because of whom any event happens in the first place.
And as Dipanwita pointed out, ICC owned events, not players.
Continuing from where I left, in the first Dialectic Forum Discussion,in the ICC Vs Team India fiasco, the situation turned ugly because of the simple fact that BCCI is the member nation of the ICC test playing nations, and as per the ruling of the ICC, all the national boards have to abide by its rules and regulations.
Now, perhaps for the first time it came out in the open, that as per the prevailing situation and status of BCCI and ICC, the players which are playing for India(whom we consider as our heroes) are just the employees of BCCI , or, in other words they have been hired by BCCI to play for it. This is because, the functioning of BCCI is out of the purview of Sports ministry of India, which controls and promotes all other sports. So, the Team India was never Team India, it was perhaps team BCCI (or Team Jagmohan Dlamiya), which all of us realized only when this incident happened.
It must be reminded here, that the team INDIA played in ICC champions trophy without their sponsors' logos on the jerseys, so it is not just that our Heroes have won, perhaps there was a compromise between both the parties, with BCCI facilitating the deal. ICC wanted India to play, primarily because of the largest cricket playig nation(population of more than 1 Billion). So just amusing that ICC decided to step back just because team India was favorite to win that tournament or team had icons like sachin, dravid and ganguly, may not actually hold competely true. (Had that been the case, IPL wont have banned pakistani players in the 3rd edition).
Obviously players also wanted to play because a good performance adds to their 'brand value'.
Taking the perspective of marketers or the companies, this was a kind of catch 22 situation. SAHARA group which was the sponsor of national cricket team, had its commercial interests directly interjecting with the South African Airlines-which sponsored the ICC Champions trophy.Similar was the case with Samsung and LG, having their commercial interests vested in different parties. I opine that the decision by the sponsors of team India to let the players play in the tournament without wearing their logos was a brave as well as a long sighted decision. Just relinquishing the relations with the players on this ground would have been an imprudent and immature.
But what about the players? Have they got no right to use their brand values to make some quick buck. If that is the case, I think india will stop producing more Dhonis and Pathans, who come from very humble backgrounds and aspire to play cricket, not only because its a pride, but also they see a promising career as a brand endorser!
Cricketing fraternity can take lessons from other sports bodies in this regard.
Football world Cup 2006 in Germany has sponsors like Adidas and Coke, whereas players like Thiery Henry had Nike and pepsi as their sponsors, which directly had conflict of commercial interests.
What one needs to understand here is that which party can extend its control on what. ICC is holding an event, so the discretion of selecting sponsors lies with the ICC. On the other hand players are using their own image. If they play good, they will get highly paid, if they perfom bad, they will not get too many takers.
In this case, players should have a right in the sponsorships deal of the events, even if the player's performance was nothing to talk about, because it is these players only who make this event hit/flop and because of whom any event happens in the first place.
And as Dipanwita pointed out, ICC owned events, not players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)