Then the tournament started with a new ball from Official Partner, Adidas, which no England player had played with before. The Premier League’s Official Wacky Ball Partner is Nike. No wonder the Jabulani proved so difficult for us to control.

Then, Mahindra Satyam (what do you mean, who?) turn up as FIFA’s Official IT Services Provider. England’s Official IT Partner is, er… Maybe that’s what David Beckham was there to do.

Tongue-in-cheek comments, but no more than such ridiculous terminology deserves. But the terminology is not the limit of the problem in such sponsorship. Despite the intended implication that ‘partners’ are acting, almost philanthropically, in the best interests of football, I suspect that the structure of these relationships may even be having a significant negative effect on the game. It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog; the sort of thing that gives marketing a bad name.

Let’s take the Jabulani ball created for this tournament. Adidas would no doubt argue that they designed it so as to improve the quality of the game for players and fans. But the truth is they designed it so they could sell more balls. The World Cup didn’t need a new ball but it got one because, Adidas, in cahoots with FIFA, needed to find some way to achieve a return on the investment of their sponsorship. No doubt the original brief to the designers had the intention of producing a ball that would yield an extensive YouTube catalogue of spectacular goals, and had that happened I’m sure we would all let them enjoy their commercial gain. But the fact is it’s been clear for some time now that this ball does not work as intended – it’s worse for players and worse for fans – and in the best interests of football it should have been abandoned long before the tournament began. But I suspect that because of Adidas’ commercial relationship with FIFA that option could never be discussed. I wonder how different this tournament might have been with a different, more familiar ball instead of one that no one asked for and no one, except the sponsor, needs?

And what about goal-line technology, such as would have spotted the one time that Frank Lampard did actually manage to squeeze the Jabulani under the crossbar? I wonder how much influence the sponsor line-up might have now that it’s inevitable that a foolproof system is introduced. There are two goal-line technologies currently in consideration – one is the Hawk Eye system, developed by a company that is owned by Siemens, and proven to work in cricket, tennis, and snooker; the other embeds a microchip in a ball, in a system developed by a collaboration of which Adidas is a part, around which some doubts still exist. As Siemens have no commercial arrangements with FIFA, I suspect the decision-making criteria may not be limited to which works best. Perhaps FIFA’s reluctance to adopt even a goal-line referee (after Thierry Henri’s antics in the play-off against Ireland) might be related to thoughts of commercial ‘partnership’ being put ahead of the good of the game.

Now, none of this is to say that I believe sponsorship to be a bad thing – the funds and the enthusiasm that it generates are clearly beneficial to the game. It’s also true that in many cases sponsors provide products or services for which there is a real need – I’m sure Mahindra Satyam are doing a fabulous job with IT. But sponsorship is at the back end of the marketing chain; it’s a blunt but effective communication tool, and that’s where it should stay. Marketing works when it identifies an audience’s need, creates products and services that satisfy it, then communicates and delivers the solution. Allowing sponsors to dictate the agenda of the game by inventing products or services so as to exploit their sponsorship, rather than the game’s true needs, is the wrong way round – the tail wagging the dog – and it’s time that this was stopped.

Unless for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil someone comes up with a ball that, when Rooney lets fly from 35 yards, is guaranteed to go in.

This music video is such a joy to watch, taking a ‘mini-swipe’ at the ad boys. It’s by Los Angeles rock band OkGo (produced by Syyn Labs) who are famous for their cleverly choreographed music videos. The premise is nothing new, but they’ve taken it to another level in sheer scale, you can’t help but be dazzled by it.  Next, I’ll rant about T-Mobile and social media…

Click here to view the embedded video.

For those of you that don’t know, WEF is an opportunity for those who are at the head of the (board)table to thrash out their views about the state of the World and what they are hoping for in the upcoming year — a big, big deal. I overheard someone in the corridor saying; “If you’re in to politics, this is the place to be.” So no pressure then? Previous years have seen such heavy hitters as Richard Branson, Tony Blair, and even ex-president Bill Clinton attending the event hosted in the small Swiss skiing resort — such is the importance of the WEF conference. With the World economy recovering from crisis, this years WEF focused on the topics of Rethink, Redesign and Rebuild.

We were asked by our client to set up some digital brand communications within their corporate sponsored area. This took the form of a series of branded animations (two animations for each day of the conference) playing across large screens mounted along the walls so that the guests could watch, and follow, the animations as they moved through the space.

Without going into lots of information about the animations themselves, I thought I’d treat you to a video of my non-scripted ramblings via a Flip video camera that I recorded whilst I was there.

(Expect some mild expletives and some general poo-pooing of every other branding scheme…)

Click here to view the embedded video.

The answer from @hjonesy (that’s our Helen) was as profound as it was immediate: it’s a social experiment; something to try to see if it works. And I think she’s hit the nail on the head.  This isn’t about music. This isn’t about the X-Factor, Simon Cowell, wee Joe, or some funny fellas in hoods. It’s about the most seismic shift in consumer behaviour that has happened for a generation, that has started in earnest in 2009.

If there is one thing that we are to remember 2009 for it must be the rise of social media and its ability to empower people, en mass and as individuals, as never before. For providing the opportunity for a single voice to express an opinion and for that opinion to join with others that are similar; growing, developing and coagulating as more and more join in, until their presence can no longer be ignored.  Until their presence is so great that it becomes more significant than the subject that inspired the first voice to be raised. Until the desired and necessary change occurs.

Think Jan Moir. Think Trafigura. Even watch Gordon Brown on TED (no, do). In 2009 we have passed the tipping point at which the balance of power shifts from corporations and institutions (the brands) to the people. It marks the point at which brands have to start to think and operate differently. The point from which no organisation can ever be forgiven for putting itself first and for not taking its responsibilities to its audience, or the wider world, seriously.

Now, the RATM movement isn’t quite the real thing just yet. As Helen says, it’s an experiment rather than a genuine desire for a Christmas No.1 of one type versus another. It’s wrapped up with the irony that the real winner is Sony BMG who have both artists on their label – some will argue that the ‘enemy’ ends up winning after all. But that’s to miss the point. The enemy here isn’t Sony, or Cowell. It’s the old way of doing things. The past. And, in 2009, it’s been defeated.

I’m looking forward to 2010.

When Tiger Woods made a statement apologising for “not being true to my values” he revealed the depth of his fraud. Just how ‘true’ are those ‘values’, Tiger? Given the extent to which he is now known to have flaunted them, clearly they are not true at all. Tiger, your values are the things that define your behaviour, not the things you think sponsors want to hear. You can’t just say them, you have to live them. If you are consistently doing bad things then you have bad values. Simple as that. When you’re aware of your actions (he wasn’t sleepwalking) to claim your values as anything else is just yet another lie.

Harsh? No. Prior to the scandal in 2001, Enron’s publicly stated values were “communication, respect, integrity, and excellence”. When their deception became apparent their Directors went to jail and corporate accounting practices were changed forever. That’s what can happen when you lie about your values. You might argue that Enron, as a big business, is different. Except that it isn’t. Tiger Woods career earning surpassed the $1 billion mark earlier this year – that’s big business enough. The vast majority of that $1bn is made from sponsorship deals and the size and scope of those deals is, in part at least, based on those same ‘values’ that Tiger claimed to have, but didn’t. The deals get renewed and extended because the public respect Woods for the values he appears to project. Which we now know are a con. Of course in Tiger’s case, he hasn’t broken any laws (apart from a minor traffic offence) so he’s not going to jail. But it’s a form of branded deception nonetheless.

But in the short term, at least, Woods may survive this. His sponsors may be too timid to drop him. But his ‘values’ will be forever changed. If he continues to claim the lie then his appeal to the public and to sponsors will spiral downwards and his longer-term propects are certainly less good. Although were he to be honest at this point and declare his values for that they really are, then perhaps he could even end up prospering even more.

After all, it turns out he’s way more fun than we thought.