FIFA 0 - Brand 1
FIFA's "clean stadium” strategy backfired on them and is another demonstration of the Streisand effect in play. In an effort to protect its official sponsors, FIFA ordered non-sponsor logos covered up across stadiums and merchandise, resulting in Levi’s placing a tarp over their logo, some could say ‘strategically tight’ at the Levi’s Stadium. The intention makes sense on paper: protect the integrity of the competition and respect the brands that paid to be there officially. FIFA's attempt to censor these brands has done the exact opposite of what it set out to do. Instead of disappearing Levi’s, FIFA drew more attention to the brand and cast itself as the villain going to extreme lengths to enact its policy.
This accidental success is really a display of the power of good identity design. Since their invention in 1873, the world is well accustomed to the iconic blue jeans and the Levi’s brand. Though I would say many realised just how much they knew the iconic batwing design until it was covered up. If they had to redraw the logo from memory, many would’ve got the type set inside a red rectangle, but how many would’ve accurately recalled the batwing design set out by Landor in 1967. It took a simple act of defiance to tighten the tarp and strip the logo back to the batwing silhouette for people to make the connection in their head and acknowledge the solid piece of design they’ve lived with for over 50 years. Most modern logos wouldn't survive being stripped down to a silhouette.
Heinz is slightly different, because in a way, FIFA created that moment for them. By going to the extreme of taping over the bottle, FIFA accidentally turned a condiment into a talking point. But it only worked because the bottle shape itself is already so unmistakable. Strip away the label and people still know exactly what they're looking at.
Reminiscent of the Coca-Cola design brief where the company reportedly asked for a bottle so distinctive that you'd recognise it by shape alone, even smashed on the ground in the dark. When product design and branding are done properly, the brand survives with no name attached at all. Heinz and Levi's are living proof of that same idea, decades later, under very different circumstances.
Of course, once something goes viral, everyone wants a piece of it. Gillette tried to capitalise on the moment, and in my opinion, it just didn't land. It felt like a brand chasing relevance rather than genuinely owning it. Viral moments are organic by nature. Levi's and Heinz didn't plan for FIFA to hand them a moment; they simply had the brand equity in place to take advantage of it when it arrived. Jumping on a wave after the fact is a completely different thing, and it's almost always easy to spot. The initial execution and post, in fairness, was at first seemingly well thought out as they sought to own the method of covering up their logo with their shaving foam.
FIFA’s actions should have created three clear winners: accidental promotion, unofficial sponsor and the first of the bandwagon jumpers. Gillette was vying for that spot; however, some of the real photos taken of the stadium suggest the "covering" wasn't quite as thorough or as authentic as the most-shared images made it look. Leading to whispers that some of those viral images may have been AI-generated rather than genuine photos from the venues.
I'm not going to get into that rabbit hole here. That's a story for another time. For me, I’m glad that the power of a good brand has shone through all the noise. I wonder if all this exposure for non-sponsors has caused some awkward questions from official World Cup sponsors about value for money for their packages, which may have FIFA looking for a hydration break.
