World Cup Feature: Winners and Losers

In our latest selection from the mass of market research and marketing data generated by the 2010 World Cup, Features Editor Teresa Lynch brings you shoes, shirts, soccer, soft drinks, smartphones, space science and the savoury smell of simmering squid.

Get your kit on
In the final on Sunday the two major teams of the World Cup will go head to head: Nike (kit supplier for the Dutch) versus Adidas (Spain). The sports products teams started the finals fairly evenly balanced with Nike kitting out 10 teams and Adidas 12 (there were 10 teams with other suppliers), however the latter also had the advantage of being an official sponsor, providing the kit for the officials and designing the new ball. The consensus seems to be that despite an early lead with their www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLG6jh23yE Write the future campaign Nike were soon overtaken by Adidas, according to NM Incite whose brand-related buzz figures give Adidas 25.1% and Nike 19.4%.

However the Jabulani ball is still very much a mixed blessing for Adidas: 13 million units shipped and counting, but some pretty mixed reviews of the ball itself. The most damning of which comes from NASA this week. Apparently at speeds over 44 mph the ball becomes 'unpredictable' and would 'deviate inconsistently' in flight. NASA also implicated the altitude; they must have noticed some of those skied balls passing their satellites.

FIFA Sponsors: The Real Thing?
Just like Nike, Pepsi (another non-sponsor) got seriously involved in raining on their rival's parade. Figures from a YouGov Siraj omnibus conducted in UAE show 56% recall of Pepsi displaying FIFA 2010 packaging ads or offers compared to 52% for Coke (who really are a sponsor). However Pepsi can be grateful to Germany for sparing them the nuisance of actually sending out their product unbranded if Argentina had won and Maradona streaked through Buenos Aires. In fact, let's all thank Germany.

Who's watching?
It is so hard to choose from the vast volumes of data which have been published about lost man hours, man days, and man lifes (sic), that instead, we'll concentrate on the positive aspects of the viewing figures. The USA is watching soccer, and even better than that, it's attracting a better class of viewer. According to figures from ESPN (working with data from Knowledge Networks) the World Cup attracts a young, upscale audience with a median income of $78,000 and a median age of 37. This compares very favourably to the average TV viewer ($48K and 45) and the average ESPN event ($63K and 44).

Smart phone, silly mistake
In a press release from Kantar Media Custom today we had confirmation of the prediction that this was going to be the Cup that went digital. A survey of smartphone users at half time during England v USA revealed that two thirds had used their mobile in some way in the first half (text 45%; Internet >20%; social network 16%; phone call 15%). Rumours that one of the texts said 'Must go, ball coming - Rob' appear to be unproven.

Psuffering Pcephalopods
At last, an English born-and-bred superstar emerging from this World Cup. As we all now know, the best way of forecasting results is not through some sophisticated algorithm but through the use of a www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/in-english/germany-and-the-psychic-squid/1878410.html psychic squid - well actually it's an octopus but never let that get in the way of a bit of silent p-enhanced alliteration, eh Tagesspiegel? Paul, the gifted cephalopod in question, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggx_QnW1NjU&feature=related predicted the results of Germany's group stage matches, victories over England and Argentina and its loss to Spain. It's hard to imagine the poor beast is long for this world now that both the Argentines and the Germans are after him: here at MrWeb we abhor the German idea of dropping him in one of the adjacent shark tanks in his aquarium home, but admit to a grudging respect for the south Americans' plan, as revealed in the newspaper El Dia: 'Four normal potatoes, olive oil for taste and a little pepper'.

All articles 2006-23 written and edited by Mel Crowther and/or Nick Thomas, 2024- by Nick Thomas, unless otherwise stated.