As Kenny Rogers once sang, “Know when to hold them and know when to fold them.”
Last month, NHL sponsor Air Canada took a huge stance. When the NHL failed to monitor its own sandbox and deal with unsportsmanlike conduct, unacceptable hits and cheap shots within its league, Air Canada, one of its major sponsors, stepped up to the plate with its opinion and a threat.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the NHL must deal with these issues (and more so than they did at the General Manager’s meetings last month) for the sake of the players, the fans and the game. But is this the arena in which to do it—the sport marketing and sponsorship arena? Was this, as some called it, just a PR stunt—a whining local market sponsor? Or was it for real?
Was Air Canada’s threat to pull its sponsorship (one of the largest in the NHL portfolio) a veiled threat that had no real substance? Does Air Canada have this sponsorship to build its brand and drive customers in general or did it partially “buy the business?” Air Canada is the official airline of all six Canadian teams and five US teams. If it pulled its sponsorship from the NHL could it still retain that revenue and those teams? How would that affect Air Canada’s bottom line? I am pretty sure Air Canada generates twelve to fifteen times revenue from those 11 teams alone over what it spends with the NHL. Can Air Canada afford to lose that revenue?
Of course, it was a good thing to hold Mr. Bettman and the league accountable and continue to raise the need for better officiating and dealing with head shots. But could Air Canada really afford to walk away from this sponsorship, or was this just an opportunity to allow it and Denis Vidal to look like heroes and big players with supposed clout because of something that happened in Montreal? Was it a PR decision to appeal to the governments of Quebec and Canada and make Quebeckers feel good knowing they would never, and could not ever, walk away from the sponsorship? Or was the threat real? They are still sponsors of the NHL and I would wager that this time next year, possibly after many more such incidents, they will still be a sponsor.
But hey, they had their fifteen minutes of fame.
These are just one person’s thoughts. What do you think?
Love any sponsorship articles that evoke me to talk hockey!
Vindal made a reactionary statement that should have never made it to the press without the consent of A.C.’s board. If I were to comment on a sponsors business tactics without the consent of my CEO or B.O.D. I might be looking for work the next day.
Air Canada contracts private charters for 10 NHL teams, that’s what this “sponsorship” is all about. Doesn’t surprise me that a company based in Dorval mounts its horse when a Habs player gets run. It’s funny because Vindal states in his letter that the issue is sponsoring a sport that presents risk of injury, yet they don’t write letters every time there is a toe-to-toe battle between two 225+ pound men with sharp steel attached to their feet?
The property should take control of its asset, protect its brand from unwarranted and damaging scrutiny. Assuming the contract would allow it, the NHL should walk away from Air Canada and take their business to WestJet. (although increasing the likelihood of a 3rd (or is it a 4th or 5th?) bailout of AC would not help my travel costs…)