Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 @ 02:03 PM
A workshop designed to enhance speed to market and profitability
Few companies use Brand licensing to extend their brands into new categories. Those that do, including Coleman, Newell Rubbermaid and P&G, have successfully delivered millions of products a year into the marketplace by leveraging the competencies, resources and distribution networks of hundreds of manufacturers throughout the globe. Up until now licensing has been a nice to have tactic for companies to extend their brands. With the recent recession and dynamic changes in the retail landscape, it is now an economic necessity for companies who plan to grow profitably in the 21st century.
Before any successful licensor like P&G enters a new category with their brand, they go through a disciplined and systematic process to determine the categories in which their brand should play and what approach - manufacturing, sourcing, acquisition or licensing - they should employ to enter the marketplace. Of course, brands owned by Coleman, Newell Rubbermaid and P&G are rich in brand equity, making them desirable by consumers and manufacturers alike, a prerequisite before launching any brand licensing program.
So, have you ever considered extending your brand via licensing? If you have, you may have considered the benefits of brand licensing and felt strongly about taking advantage of these benefits. After all, what brand owners would choose not to connect with their consumers faster than they could organically? Or, who wouldn't want to leverage a licensee's resources to market their brand? What about the opportunity to protect your brand's trademark in a particular category that would otherwise be at risk? That's important, too. Right? And, of course, the chance to earn royalty revenue to reinvest in marketing or to strengthen the company's operating income is compelling all by itself. But, how do you really know whether your brand is ready to be licensed before you commit the time and resources to launch a brand licensing program?
Based on our experience and industry knowledge having extended the world's greatest brands into new categories via licensing, we have developed a highly facilitated, day-long workshop designed to assist you in getting the clarity you need before moving forward. We start by determining what categories your brand is ready to be extended into and then utilizing our proprietary evaluation process, we assist you in selecting which of these categories is best suited to be extended via licensing. As success of any brand licensing program is contingent upon you, we have structured our program to gain consensus amongst your organization's management and marketing leadership. That way you can begin implementing your findings immediately.
Our workshop makes certain your brand's positioning, architecture and consumer perceptions are the focal point in making brand licensing decisions. We do this by:
- Determining the value of your brand from an awareness and perception perspective
- Identifying and or verifying categories your brand has permission to extend into
- Evaluating which of these categories should be extended through licensing
- Prioritizing the categories to ensure you are capitalizing on your best market opportunities
Specific research is a critical and necessary input to this workshop. Accordingly, we build the research into the workshop's pre-work phase so that the workshop can be utilized to build consensus and make key decisions. The research is designed to answer the following questions:
- What is the awareness level of the brand?
- What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the brand, by target segment?
- What new categories does the target segment want to see the brand in?
- What is the market attractiveness of these categories?
We include educational components throughout the day so that all participants are speaking a common language. For example, we make sure participants understand the brand's architecture and its components including: product attributes, functional benefits, emotional benefits and higher order brand identity. We also ensure participants are clear and aligned on their brand's positioning statement. Finally, we review:
The deliverable is a consensus on whether the brand is ready to be licensed into new categories and if so, provides a list of the top categories that represent the best opportunity to extend the brand through licensing.
That way you know how to extend your brand via licensing so you can take advantage of this critical go to market tactic. And, because the brand's vitality and essence are critical to its long-term health we work with the team throughout the workshop to ensure that every category selected by definition reinforces the brand's position. While the group can be larger, we generally plan for attendance by 8 to 10 key organization stakeholders, including the organization's leadership.
This workshop is lead by renowned brand licensing expert Pete Canalichio.
Please email me for more about how this workshop can benefit your brand.
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Jun 21, 2010 @ 01:27 PM
This week's posting was written by our guest author: Bill Jachthuber, an innovative and insightful marketing leader with over 26 years experience in developing business growth through strategic partnerships, innovative product platforms and marketing relationships with leading consumer and foodservice brands. As the leader of the licensing program for Cinnabon, Bill created over 70 innovative new products through strategic licensing partnerships which enhanced the Cinnabon equity with consumers across the United States. 
What separates successful food licensing programs from unsuccessful ventures?
A well thought out plan that considers the brand first before the product or category.
While there are lots of short term opportunities for brands to license their brand equity, the truly strategic, and well managed licensing opportunities are the ones that begin with a careful look at what the brand means to consumers and what the brand architecture will allow the brand to become for product extensions or category innovation.
So, how do brand owners begin to develop a robust licensing program? At Cinnabon, we began with a careful look at the Cinnabon brand architecture, evaluating the places that the brand could play by category, before we approached any licensees for business opportunities. We spent time talking with the current Cinnabon consumers, to see what they wanted from products with the Cinnabon brand. We also carefully crafted a positioning for the product and the category we were looking to enter. This avoided the situation that many brands find themselves in, creating products that undermine the brand and confuse the consumer, eroding many years of hard fought for consumer loyalty.
In this, we set up a strategic plan before the first deal was signed, and tried to thoroughly understand the implications for this franchised brand to enter into a food licensing agreement.
We asked the questions:
- What are potential categories that the brand should play in?
- Does this category have potential long term for growing the brand or
- Is this simply a short-lived trend that could spell disaster for products that enter the category?
Sadly, this careful analysis and research that is so essential for this stage is often either skipped, or done without qualified resources that have created licensed products for brands.
The process to research brand, understand consumer and marketplace, takes time and expertise. It also requires a commitment from the brand to be patient to thoroughly explore and analyze before signing the first program. It also requires control and discipline to manage the brand like the precious equity that it holds. Signing licensing programs with the right suppliers creating the right products in the right categories adds to brand equity, and attracts new consumers to the brand.
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Tue, May 25, 2010 @ 01:15 PM
Jack Trout in his blog published on http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com "Licensing: Trouble for Brands" dated February 25, 2008 makes a compelling argument for why not to consider licensing as a method of brand extension. Furthermore, he backs it up with multiple examples of established brands with flawed licensing programs that serve to prove his hypothesis. After reading about Pratt & Whitney and Pierre Cardin, what CEO in their right mind would choose to risk the company's crown jewels to a group of third party manufacturers which don't have a clue about how to build a brand, let alone manage one? With so much at stake, only those CEOs that are either reckless or desperate would consider licensing. Right?
Maybe the problem isn't licensing, but its poor or improper execution? After all, why would a company choose to forgo its consumer driven innovation process or marketing principles only when it comes to extending their brands through licensing? Some of the best and biggest brands around the globe have been actively and successfully licensing. Disney, P&G, Coke and Harley Davidson each have outstanding licensing programs. These programs not only enjoy strong royalty income, they enhance their brands' attributes in the process.
The problem definitely isn't licensing. Rather, it's either the lack of sound brand guardrails in the brand licensing process or a failure to heed to those guardrails. Jack Trout builds multiple assumptions into his argument that are flawed. I agree that the promise of royalty revenue can be intoxicating, especially to a public company struggling to meet its forecasted quarterly operating income. However, this is an indictment of management and not licensing. Licensing is simply a tactical execution of a brand extension strategy (even if the strategy is no strategy).
In considering brand licensing, the first question that needs to be addressed is where the brand should play. In other words, what categories should the brand be in? If a company begins with a sound understanding of their brand's architecture and positioning, they can then develop a robust brand extension strategy. Knowing where the brand has permission to play enables a company to identify extensions that offer the best overall business opportunity. Once the company knows where the brand can play, they must determine "how to win." Should the company extend the brand organically? Or, should they source the category? If the company chooses not to extend the brand with internal resources, they do so through acquisition or licensing. Like any brand extension, each licensed category must support the brand's architecture and positioning. At Newell Rubbermaid, we would draft a category positioning statement aligned with the brand positioning statement for each licensed category. This ensured each category licensed reinforced the brand's positioning.
If a company chooses to extend their brand without a fundamental understanding of the brand's architecture and positioning, the licensed products will at best have a neutral impact on the brand. More likely, they will permanently erode the brand's equity. This consequence would occur irrespective of how the company chooses to extend their brand. Licensing gets a bad rap for damaging brands when either internal licensing teams or their agencies decide to extend a brand into "adjacent" categories in the pursuit of a quick royalty infusion. Whether or not a company chooses to use other peoples' resources and money when executing their brand extension strategy, they must always ensure every product brought to market continues to support the brand's commitment and promise.
Learn more about Brand Licensing
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Tue, May 04, 2010 @ 11:06 AM
How many of you have gone to an event and brought home a souvenir? If I had to guess, I would say every one of you at one time or another bought something from an event you attended. The more incredible the experience was for you, the more important it was for you to buy something. The only thing more disappointing than having to pay big bucks for bad event merchandise was when there was nothing to buy. When you eventually found that perfect tee shirt, cap or other souvenir, your experience was immortalized.
For this reason, more and more companies are choosing to sponsor events. They understand this connection between fans and events and wish to take advantage of the positive association and feelings that consumers / fans get from attending those events. When a company becomes intertwined with an event, for example, through a long standing sponsorship, their company name becomes synonymous with that event. This type of relationship creates powerful brand cohesion. NASCAR fans only know their championship as the Nextel Cup championship. To not include the Nextel name in the title would be to omit part of the title. NASCAR fans appreciate the role Nextel has played in supporting their sport. For this support, fans reward Nextel by buying their cellular phone products. However, Nextel's NASCAR product line does not extend beyond the cellular phone category. Wouldn't it be great if Nextel created a complete line of NASCAR merchandise? Maybe you are concerned that no one would choose to buy it? If so, keep reading. There is a huge opportunity waiting to be tapped if executed properly. For this reason Nextel should create an event licensing program that compliments their existing Nextel Cup event marketing program.
Just to be clear, when I refer to an event I mean any organized activity that provides entertainment value. This includes sporting events such as professional league and college sports, all star or championship games, golf, tennis and cycling tournaments, rodeo competitions and, of course, automobile racing. Events also include entertainment properties such as music and dance concerts, museum or art exhibits, state fairs, county festivals, monster truck rallies, pro wrestling and political conventions. Organizing committees and/or sanctioning bodies typically manage the execution of an event. The organizing committee or sanctioning body look to sponsors and television networks to offset the cost of the event. The sponsors, like Nextel, benefit from an association with the event which they use to drive sales of their products or services. Networks benefit from the sale of ad space during the airing of the event. In addition, almost every event large or small sells event merchandise. The merchandise which features the event logo and "look," provides another revenue stream to defray costs while providing fans an opportunity to memorialize their experience.
Event licensing enables sponsors to create and sell co-branded (sponsor + event) merchandise. For title sponsors or brands which have been affiliated with the event over a long period, event licensing offers an opportunity to connect the brand with the event marks. While title sponsors historically have been able to place the event mark on their product, they traditionally have not able to create a co-branded licensed merchandise program. In fact, very few companies successfully have been able to accomplish this. For those that have done so, co-branded event licensing programs offer tremendous benefits including exposure for the brand, the opportunity to reinforce a corporate message, marketing support for the core business and the chance to satisfy fans/consumers to memorialize the event.
Brands like Nike and addidas have successfully executed co-branded event licensing programs. However, only a handful of non-apparel companies have accomplished this feat. One of these companies is Coca-Cola. When I was at Coca-Cola, my team created co-branded event licensing programs for the Olympics, FIFA World Cup and NASCAR. Through these programs, Coke was able to reinforce the associative imagery of the event with the Coca-Cola brand in a powerful and distinctive way. To put this in perspective, most Fortune 500 marketers spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on event marketing programs which attempt to create a lasting impression between the event fans and their brands. In almost every case, the impressions generated from these activities -advertising, public relations, experiential marketing and hospitality programs - are fleeting. In very few instances can a brand create an enduring impression. Even fewer generate revenue at the same time.
When Coca-Cola created their pin trading program for the Nagano Olympics, they had fans line up every day of the Games sometimes waiting for hours just to purchase the pin of the day. When the Olympics ended these consumers brought their Coca-Cola Nagano pins home and proudly displayed them in their homes for all to see. And while some of them eventually may have chosen to take them down, I would bet only a few ever sold their pins. Certainly none gave them away. For those that might have chosen to sell, Coke likely didn't even care as the transaction provided them another opportunity to create an enduring impression. This is why event licensing can be so powerful for sponsors.
For manufacturers (licensees), event licensing offers immediate recognition. For established licensees, event licensing offers an opportunity to reinforce their role. A good example of this is Aminco, a pin licensee. Aminco has licenses with virtually every major professional sport. For this reason, Aminco is synonymous with pins. Event licensing also offers manufacturers credibility as they benefit from the "halo effect" of the event. Finally, event licensing offers licensees a new revenue stream. For event retailers, a co-branded program offers additional product mix that will attract and satisfy a broader set of consumers. A co-branded program usually drives additional traffic to the retailer through marketing and public relations efforts executed by the event sponsor. Finally for the organizing committee or sanctioning body, a co-branded event licensing program enables them to support an important sponsor while generating incremental royalty revenue.
Tying brand licensing into event marketing creates a powerful way for sponsors to connect with their consumers while creating substantial benefits for all stakeholders - manufacturers, event retailers and the organizing committee. It would be terrific to see more sponsors pushing for these rights.
Want to learn more about putting together a successful event based licensing program? Join LIMA's webinar on "Tying Licensing into Event Marketing" on Thursday, May 6th from 12pm - 2pm EDT. Adrian de Groot, COO Aminco International, will be joining me in presenting.
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 @ 11:58 AM
In Part 1, I discussed how the Lexus brand came to be. Toyota, a company for the masses, under the tutelage of Eiji Toyoda, launched the Lexus brand and quickly elevated his company into the desirable and lucrative luxury market.
Juxtaposed with the creation of the Lexus brand, the Rolex Company in 1946 chose to create the Tudor brand, inspired after the long-reigning English dynasty. To put the launch of the Tudor brand in context, Hans Wilsdorf and his brother-in-law Alfred Davis founded the Rolex Company in 1905 with the belief that watches could be worn on the wrist and be both elegant and reliable. At the time watches were large needing to be carried in the pocket. They also were plagued with inaccuracies. Wilsdorf knew if he could solve these two problems, he could revolutionize the watch industry. In 1914, the Kew Observatory granted Rolex a class “A” precision certificate, the first wristwatch to ever receive this rating. Rolex would go on to achieve many “firsts” including the first ever watch with a self-winding mechanism and the first ever waterproof and dustproof watch. These achievements made the Rolex brand synonymous with precision and cutting-edge technology. To compliment this precision, Wilsdorf pushed his designers to create timepieces with unmistakable style and elegance. From the early twentieth century to this day, Rolex has been the benchmark in chronometers. With watches ranging in price from $2500 to over $40,000, the Rolex brand is reserved for the wealthy.
And so, Wilsdorf in 1946, decided to create a new brand “that would sell at a more modest price” while attaining “the standards of dependability for which Rolex is famous.” With WWII ending just a few months prior there was hope for a better world. However, this was an especially difficult economic period. Many returning home from the war could not find jobs. Factories throughout Europe and Asia had been destroyed and the focus was on rebuilding. Even the wealthy weren’t buying like they had been and this was affecting Rolex sales. Rolex needed a new brand that could capture a bigger market for their watches. If the Rolex Company could capture consumers at the price point below where Rolex branded watches were sold, their market size could more than double. This would allow Rolex the ability to significantly enhance revenue growth for the foreseeable future. Wilsdorf also understood that if he didn’t reach a broader audience for his product, Rolex might suffer a significant period of revenue decline in the aftermath of WWII. Like Toyoda, Wilsdorf could have purchased another watch company such as Breitling or licensed an existing affluent brand such as Waterman to meet his objectives. Instead, Wildorf selected the Tudor brand which he had trademarked back in 1926 for just such an occasion.
Unlike Lexus where Toyota parts could not be used if it expected to be classified as luxury automobile, Tudor watches, which were a category below Rolex, could make use of Rolex parts and movements. Moreover, in a lower classification, Tudor could be sold for a fraction of the price of a Rolex while still commanding strong margins. Through the creation of the Tudor brand, Wilsdorf understood he could grow revenue while preserving the exclusivity of the Rolex brand. The Tudor brand, in turn, would fulfill pent up demand of the affluent market which had been clamoring for a watch with performance and elegance, but which was not as expensive as a Rolex. To ensure the Tudor brand would have its own enduring identify, Wilsdorf positioned Tudor as the watch to be worn when participating in “dangerous” professions. This positioning allowed Tudor to be the perfect watch for real and aspiring divers, miners, pilots and race car drivers. Over the past 60 years Tudor has built a reputation for ruggedness and reliability. In a natural evolution of the brand, Tudor became the official “timing partner” for Porsche Motorsport in 2009. By aligning with one of the world’s most renowned performance automobile brands Tudor will continue to reinforce it brand promise for exacting precision in all types of environments.
While the Rolex Company is privately held and does not divulge its sales by brand, we know Tudor markets and sells more than 140 styles of watches today. Suffice it to say, Wilsdorf's launch of the Turdor brand enabled him to achieve his objective of growing the Rolex Company revenue over the long-term (now at $3 billion) while offering a larger portion of the population a chance to own Rolex technology. Both Toyoda and Wilsdorf were visionaries that understood where they wanted to take their companies. Toyoda began with a brand for the masses and elevated his company with the Lexus brand that has been the benchmark in luxury, performance and reliability since its inception. Wilsdorf set out to create the world's most accurate and elegant watch brand. He then devised a way to share his achievement with a much bigger portion of mankind through the Tudor brand.
Interested in reading more about brand extensions through licensing? Download our free "Intro To Brand Licensing Report" today!
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 @ 12:25 PM
When you think of how some of the world's greatest brands came to be, Lexus and Tudor come to mind. Both brands were launched by companies that already had well established brands in different segments - Toyota in the case of Lexus and Rolex in the case of Tudor. Toyota, a brand for the masses elevated its company with the Lexus brand, a benchmark in luxury, performance and reliability since its inception. Rolex, the worlds most accurate and elegant watch brand, devised a way to share its achievement with a much bigger portion of mankind through the Tudor brand. Two brands, two methods, two incredible accomplishments.
I remember when Toyota launched the Lexus brand. It was back in 1989. I was in my first year of business school at the University of North Carolina. At the time, Japanese automobile manufacturers where capturing huge chunks of market share in the US from their American competitors. To put the share loss in perspective, the big three automobile manufacturers - GM, Ford and Chrysler - were responsible in the early 1970s for 90% of all vehicles sold in the USA. By 1989 their collective share dropped to 73%. Today that number has dwindled to about 40%, making all three companies a mere shadow of their former selves. While there are a variety of reasons for the demise of the American automobile manufacturers at the hands of their Japanese competitors, the primary reason was quality. The disparity in quality between Japanese and American vehicles grew to such an extreme, a bitter rivalry ensued. As Japan grew stronger and stronger in other industries as well, many Americans feared the Japanese would soon own the United States. The tension between American and Japanese automobile manufacturers got so high that Hollywood made a movie in 1986 called Gung Ho in an effort to portray this cultural divide in a light-hearted and disarming fashion. For those interested, the movie features Michael Keaton as the protagonist who struggles to bridge the gap between his Japanese and American colleagues. While Gung Ho never won any major awards, it should keep you entertained while educating you on this distinct and important period in history.
It seemed the more American consumers drove Japanese made vehicles, the more disappointed they became with American engineering. With each shortcoming, American automobile brand equity suffered. The loss in equity adversely impacted consumers' brand loyalty. The only people who insisted on driving American made automobiles at the time were WWII diehards, which I am imagine many stubbornly regretted. You see, this wasn't about patriotism, it was about value. At the same time, Middle America was becoming enamored with the features and benefits of the Japanese automobile manufacturers. Toyotas, Nissans and Hondas were better designed, more reliable and cost substantially less. Furthermore, they got much better gas mileage than their American counterparts. With the oil embargos of the 1970s and early 1980s, gas mileage became an important attribute for American consumers. Because the Japanese understood this, American consumers rewarded the Japanese automobile brands with increased brand preference. While Nissan and Honda saw significant gains during this period, Toyota connected the most with American consumers and achieved the greatest success.
Toyota's market share in the US grew from 2% in 1970 to 6% by 1983 (source: Ward's Automotive Group). Eiji Toyoda, Toyota's chairman at the time understood that his company's competitive advantage would enable Toyota to continue to make inroads with American mass market consumers. However, Toyoda also understood that these attributes would not enable his company to break into the desirable and lucrative luxury automobile market. At the time, the luxury market was dominated by Germany's BMW and Mercedes brands and by GM's Cadillac and Ford's Lincoln divisions. The German brands offered the affluent top-notch engineering and performance; the American models provided the wealthy with comfort and status. Sensing a window of opportunity Toyoda knew he had to make a push now if he hoped to enter the luxury automobile market. To compete, Toyota needed an automobile that could outperform its foreign rivals on their own turf. And, since the Toyota brand stood for reliability and economy, it could never serve the role needed for this new unnamed luxury automobile. With a clear understanding of the time and resources needed to enter the luxury automobile market (almost 7 years and over $1 billion), Toyoda could have chosen to purchase an existing luxury automobile manufacturer such as Jaguar (the way the Tata Group did in 2008). Or, he could have chosen to license one of the world's luxury brands from another category such as Gulf Stream aircraft or Mont Blanc pens and extended either brand into the automobile market. Instead, Toyoda in 1983 decided to build the brand in house and initiated the F1 Project. To accomplish this goal, Toyoda spared no expense. The F1 was built from the ground up utilizing no existing Toyota platforms or parts. To ensure its lofty standards were achieved, tests were conducted throughout Europe, the US, Australia and Saudi Arabia. To compliment the F1, Toyota created the Lexus marquee in 1986 and designated the first vehicle the Lexus LS 400. In January 1989, the Lexus LS 400 debuted at the North American International Automobile show in Detroit. With a litany of new features including memory seats and automatic tilt-and-telescoping steering, the Lexus LS 400 was met with significant praise. With a price tag thousands less that the competition, the first generation Lexus LS 400 sold 165,000 units over its life - more than BMW and Mercedes. The Lexus LS 400 consistently earned the JD Powers award for best in quality and quickly built a reputation for reliability. Shortly thereafter, Consumer Reports rated Lexus one of the best automobiles in the world. Now in its fourth generation the Lexus brand stands for excellence, performance and quality. I would say, not only did Eiji Toyoda achieve his goal of entering the luxury automobile market, he virtually captured it.
In Part 2, I will take you through the origination of the Tudor brand by Rolex, one of the world's most prestigious brands.
Interested in reading more about brand licensing? Download our free "Intro To Brand Licensing Report" today!
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Tue, Mar 02, 2010 @ 06:40 PM
Below is my interview with Chris Gilliland from the Vancouver Airport Authority. Chris gives his point of view on the success of the Coca-Cola Official Olympic Pin Trading Center operated inside the airport during the Olympic Winter Games. All the pins sold at the Pin Trading Center were official licensed merchandise and were made with recycled metal.
Coca-Cola opened the pin trading center as part of its brand licensing program for the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games.
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Sun, Feb 28, 2010 @ 07:25 PM
Pete captured the last couple minutes of the Canada vs USA gold medal hockey game at the Coca-Cola Official Pin Trading Center inside the CTV atrium in downtown Vancouver. Hear as the anxiety builds as the USA team tries to score and the jubilation as Crosby scores the winning goal.
Coca-Cola opened the pin trading center as part of its brand licensing program for the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games.
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Sun, Feb 28, 2010 @ 06:56 PM
In early January I was in Vancouver preparing for the upcoming Olympic Games. At the time, I had heard there was a big hockey game being played between Canada and the USA. As a proud American I wanted to watch the game and cheer on my fellow countrymen. I found out from an American friend living in Vancouver that she would be watching the game at a nearby pub with a group of Canadians. She invited me to join her. I arrived half way through the second period. The place was packed with the game being televised on every screen. No one was talking - everyone was fixated on the game. The USA team was winning. Not sure, I asked my friend what level of teams was playing. She told me the national junior teams were playing for the world championship. Dumbfounded, I remarked, "The whole country of Canada is watching their national junior team play?" not really believing this could be possible. After all, these were high school and college-age kids that were causing the country to come to a standstill. I don't even think the game was broadcast in the United States. At least no one I knew was watching. The USA team ended up winning the game in overtime, the first time in six years. The crowd in the pub hung their heads. They couldn't believe Canada had lost. Everyone talked about the loss the next day. It was at this moment that I began to understand what hockey means to the country of Canada. For Canadians, hockey embodies their national identity. They invented the game. They are not supposed to lose to any other country, especially on their own turf.
I returned to Vancouver in early February to help Coca-Cola with the Olympic Winter Games. Since arriving I have asked many Canadians what their personal wish was for the Games. Nearly everyone I spoke with told me how important it was for Canada to win gold in men's hockey. Canada could win a record number of gold medals (which they already have done with 13), but if they didn't win in hockey the Games would be deemed a failure. I told one taxi driver whom I had posed this question to that I thought I understood what winning gold in hockey meant to Canada. You see I am a Naval Academy graduate. We have a game with similar stakes. Navy faces Army each year in football. It is arguably the greatest rivalry in all of college sports. Navy can win every game in its season, but if it doesn't beat Army the season is considered a failure. Similarly, the season is considered a success as long as Navy beats Army. For Army, the game holds the same significance.
On Sunday Canada will play the USA for the gold medal in men's hockey. In their previous meeting earlier in Vancouver, Canada lost to the United States by a score of 5-3. The country was practically in mourning. The loss forced Canada to play an extra game against Germany to stay in the tournament. Despite a slow start against Germany, Canada caught their stride in the second period and never looked back. Canadians breathed a sigh of relief. The next day, Canada had to face Russia in the quarter finals, a team they hadn't beaten in Olympic hockey in 50 years. Many people expected Canada to be playing Russia for the gold medal. Instead they were meeting in the quarter finals with the loser going home. The country was anxious but hopeful. They knew their team had the talent to win. The Canadians decided to play with a lot of physicality and work to contain Russia's superstar, Alexander Ovechkin. The plan worked like a charm and Canada ended up crushing Russia 7-3. Earlier that day Canada had won four medals including gold and silver for the first time ever in the same event (women's two-man bobsleigh). While the Globe and Mail, Canada's national paper, covered the medals won the next day on the front page, the rest of the front page and almost the entire sports section was dedicated to the win over Russia - despite the fact the win did not result in a medal for Canada. After the win, Canadians had a swagger in their step. Their team was back. And, yes, they were happy their country was also winning medals.
While Canada continues to rack up a record number of gold medals at this Olympics - currently at 13 - they will not be satisfied unless they take one more in a win against the Americans Sunday in hockey. For team USA, this has been a tremendous Olympics with 36 total medals. Sunday the USA will win their 37th when they play Canada, the most ever for any country in a Winter Olympics. While every American wants the USA to take home the gold in hockey we will not be devastated if our team doesn't win. As the youngest team in the tournament at 26.5 years of age, they have already exceeded everyone's expectations. Gold would be icing on the cake.
Canada, you are a great nation and a great friend to America. Congratulations on an outstanding job hosting the world at the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. Sunday your men's hockey team plays the USA for the gold medal. I know how important this game is to you. So best of luck and know you can hold your head up high regardless of the outcome.
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Feb 22, 2010 @ 08:44 PM
Global TV's Ted Field discovers pin trading at the Coca-Cola Official Pin Trading Center at The Olympic Superstore in The Bay downtown. Ted finds he can create a photo pin of himself while there. It's one of a kind!
Pin Trading is part of Coke's brand licensing strategy for the Olympic Games. All pins were made with recycled material and a contribution went to the World Wildlife Fund.
http://news.globaltv.com/beyondthepodium/video/index.html?releasePID=W6HbWuuLAkk2AR_XXnjnaQMnljWP3HQI