From
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ke-sponsorship

Barclays is preparing to ditch its controversial sponsorship deal for Boris
Johnson's flagship bicycle hire scheme, delivering only half the £50m the
London mayor had claimed the bank would pay.

The bank's logo has covered thousands of "Boris bikes" since the scheme
began in July 2010, for a promised total payment of £50m, in an arrangement
that has drawn criticism over the manner of its awarding and the modest
sums raised for widespread branding across the capital.

Barclays' decision comes in the wake of increased public concern about
cycle safety in London, with a mounting death toll. In July, Philippine De
Gerin-Ricard, a 20-year-old French-born student became the first person to
be killed riding a Boris bike.

However, Barclays said its decision was part of a wider review of
commercial partnerships, as the bank examines deals undertaken directly by
its former chief executive, Bob Diamond, as it tries to move on from that
era.

It is understood that Barclays executives met the mayor's "cycling tsar",
Andrew Gilligan, last month to inform him that the bank would be
withdrawing its backing. Talks have been continuing in confidence between
Barclays and Transport for London (TfL).

Johnson had hoped to secure a new sponsor before the decision was
publicised, but after controversy surrounding the original securing of the
Barclays sponsorship deal, TfL bosses are keen that the process should be
entirely transparent and formal.

Barclays said that they would be honouring the term of the contract until
August 2015, and in a joint statement the bank and TfL claimed that they
had mutually agreed against "an option to extend".

However, the mayor had announced in 2011 that Barclays would continue to
back the scheme for a further three years, up to 2018.

Questions were also raised over the original award of the contract in 2010
given Johnson's close links to Diamond, who quit Barclays last year in the
wake of the Libor scandal. An investigation by the London assembly's budget
committee said it was questionable whether TfL had secured the best deal
with Barclays, especially in extending its contract rather than returning
to the open market for a new sponsor.

It also said that the terms of the contract with Barclays could mean that
the agreed £50m would never be paid in full. The London assembly also
warned the mayor more broadly about TfL's "ad hoc approach to sponsorship"
which could expose it to unnecessary reputational risk from sponsors.

But increasing bad publicity about cycle safety in London may have
contributed to the bank reassessing its sponsorship. A blue similar to
Barclays' colours has also been painted across major roads on the mayor's
"cycle superhighways".

While the mayor had pledged to bring the bikes in at no cost to the
taxpayer, figures obtained from TfL this year showed that sponsorship and
user charges covered barely half the costs.

Caroline Pidgeon, leader of the London Assembly's Liberal Democrat group,
said: "Barclays have received immense benefits from the publicity given to
the cycle hire scheme in its early years, but now that its performance is
looking shaky they appear to be bailing out.

"Fundamental questions have to be asked as to how such a one-sided deal was
ever struck between Transport for London and Barclays."

TfL's director of commercial development, Graeme Craig, said: "Barclays has
not pulled out of the cycle hire sponsorship deal. After the current
sponsorship deal with Barclays ends – in two years' time – the cycle
sponsorship portfolio will fundamentally change.

"Barclays remains committed to the sponsorship agreement signed in 2010,
but the bank and TfL have decided not to take up the option to extend it.
Several months ago Barclays began the process of a strategic review of its
sponsorship programmes and has now made a commercial decision not to
continue the sponsorship."

In message

, at 16:00:31 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Recliner
remarked:
From
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...et-to-ditch-bo
ris-bike-sponsorship

Barclays is preparing to ditch its controversial sponsorship deal for Boris
Johnson's flagship bicycle hire scheme, delivering only half the £50m the
London mayor had claimed the bank would pay.

Some stuff I looked up last month, and posted elsewhe

[Barclays are sponsoring the London scheme to the tune of £50m, the
whole scheme cost £225m, taxpayers are subsidising it £11m a year
(equivalent to almost £300 per annum per registered user), and each bike
has cost £1400 to deploy. It's also missing its targets and Serco was
recently penalised £2.6m for poor operational performance.]
--
Roland Perry

Recliner wrote in
.
com:

Caroline Pidgeon, leader of the London Assembly's Liberal Democrat
group, said: "Barclays have received immense benefits from the
publicity given to the cycle hire scheme in its early years, but now
that its performance is looking shaky they appear to be bailing out.

I wonder how many people are influenced to open an account with Barclays
because of the sponsorship. Few people in England can be unaware that
Barclays exists and is a bank - and if they aren't, Barclays (like most
banks these days) doesn't brand itself as 'Barclays Bank' so just seeing
the name on a bike won't help.

Conversely I wonder how many think that a bank that uses their money to
paint its name on bikes is maybe one to avoid.

So how 'immense' are the benefits?

Peter

--
|| Peter CS ~ Epsom ~ UK | pjcs02 [at] gmail.com |

In message , at 10:25:48 on Wed, 11
Dec 2013, Peter CS remarked:
Caroline Pidgeon, leader of the London Assembly's Liberal Democrat
group, said: "Barclays have received immense benefits from the
publicity given to the cycle hire scheme in its early years, but now
that its performance is looking shaky they appear to be bailing out.

I wonder how many people are influenced to open an account with Barclays
because of the sponsorship. Few people in England can be unaware that
Barclays exists and is a bank - and if they aren't, Barclays (like most
banks these days) doesn't brand itself as 'Barclays Bank' so just seeing
the name on a bike won't help.

Conversely I wonder how many think that a bank that uses their money to
paint its name on bikes is maybe one to avoid.

So how 'immense' are the benefits?

I think it comes under the umbrella of "Corporate Social Responsibility"
rather than "advertising", and many large companies have significant
such budgets. Wikipedia has a page on CSR, which covers most of the
rationale.
--
Roland Perry

Yes, but Caroline Pidgeon has forthrightly declared that Barclays Bank has
received great benefits from this sponsorship. Does anyone know what she is
referring to? Does she herself know? If there really were great advantages to
Barclays from this arrangement, why are they so casually pulling out? The
death toll is not attributable to them and does not reflect badly on them. It's
Boris Johnson who needs to cover his back on this issue.

Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;140088 Wrote:
In message , at 10:25:48 on Wed, 11
Dec 2013, Peter CS ils remarked:--
Caroline Pidgeon, leader of the London Assembly's Liberal Democrat
group, said: "Barclays have received immense benefits from the
publicity given to the cycle hire scheme in its early years, but now
that its performance is looking shaky they appear to be bailing out.-

I wonder how many people are influenced to open an account with
Barclays
because of the sponsorship. Few people in England can be unaware that
Barclays exists and is a bank - and if they aren't, Barclays (like most
banks these days) doesn't brand itself as 'Barclays Bank' so just
seeing
the name on a bike won't help.

Conversely I wonder how many think that a bank that uses their money to
paint its name on bikes is maybe one to avoid.

So how 'immense' are the benefits?-

I think it comes under the umbrella of "Corporate Social Responsibility"

rather than "advertising", and many large companies have significant
such budgets. Wikipedia has a page on CSR, which covers most of the
rationale.
--
Roland Perry

Yes, but Caroline Pidgeon has forthrightly declared that Barclays Bank
has
received great benefits from this sponsorship. Does anyone know what she
is
referring to? Does she herself know? If there really were great
advantages to
Barclays from this arrangement, why are they so casually pulling out?
The
death toll is not attributable to them and does not reflect badly on
them. It's
Boris Johnson who needs to cover his back on this issue.

It would appear that this was a deal informally agreed between Diamond and
Boris. Now Barclays is reviewing many of Diamond's decisions, and it seems
this is probably one of several that's to be reversed. At the same time,
TfL should conduct a proper competitive tender for the replacement
sponsorship deal, not just have a private stitch up between Boris and his
mates. I'm not suggesting that it was corrupt, just that such contracts
such be agreed in a more open way. Perhaps such sponsorship would be more
valuable to some other organisation?

In message , at 19:15:54 on Wed, 11
Dec 2013, Robin9 remarked:
I think it comes under the umbrella of "Corporate Social Responsibility"

rather than "advertising", and many large companies have significant
such budgets. Wikipedia has a page on CSR, which covers most of the
rationale.

Yes, but Caroline Pidgeon has forthrightly declared that Barclays Bank
has received great benefits from this sponsorship. Does anyone know
what she is referring to?

The sorts of corporate reputational reasons listed in Wikipedia.

Does she herself know?

It's difficult to measure, but those whose job it is can manage to do it
well enough (through interviews/focus groups and so on) just the same as
they decide if other forms of Public Relations and sponsorship activity
is working.

If there really were great advantages to Barclays from this
arrangement, why are they so casually pulling out?

They have new senior management and the banking sector is in a state of
flux. Programmes like this one are inevitably going to be looked at to
see if they still fit the company's objectives.
--
Roland Perry