Posted by Michael Waltzer on August 3, 2011 05:30 PM
When it comes to naming rights and branding, there has to be a limit to what a brand can sponsor or name ... or does there? Trending on YouTube is a proposal to President Obama by the Australian detergent brand Vanish NapiSan.
The proposition? $25 million for Obama. All they ask in return is to be the official brand of the White House. What does that mean? The deal would involve some kind of signage of the brands logo at the front of the building and an exclusive agreement to use only Vanish NapiSan product to wash its laundry. And why is an Aussie brand pitching America's Commander-in-Chief?
Well, according to the campaign's Facebook page, they've already written to every member of Congress asking for support (so that's what delayed the debt crisis agreement!) and are now sending an advocate to the US to address Obama himself. Underneath is a taped copy of the supposed letter sent out.
The page has over 2,500 "likes" for the sponsorship. It also features pictures and videos of his journey to find supporters of the sponsorship.
The agency that was behind the marketing and strategy were Euro RSCG Sydney and Red Agency. Still, would Americans really submit to renaming the White House the "Vanish NapiSan" White House?
Let's put it this way: Would people really submit to naming a college university stadium, as Rutgers did, The High Point Solutions Stadium? Or naming England's Manchester City football stadium the Etihad Airways Stadium?