Be the Coach: the 2011 launch

Read the campaign story

Football supporters often believe they could select a better team than the manager. Carling Black Label turned that familiar conversation into an authorised role in a real event. The original 2011 Be the Coach campaign let fans influence the teams fielded by Orlando Pirates and Kaizer Chiefs in the Carling Black Label Cup. Sponsorship became a controlled transfer of decision-making power rather than only a logo around the pitch.

Campaign accounts describe mobile voting connected to codes under bottle caps, with supporters choosing starting players and influencing a substitution during the match. Traditional advertising, social channels and mobile information supported the process. Ogilvy Cape Town was the agency. Later editions expanded the property, but the historical case here is the initial team-selection idea, not the cumulative results or additional features of a decade of events. Votes are also not equivalent to unique participants, particularly when a promotion permits repeated entries.

The mechanism is consequential participation. Many brand polls ask for an opinion that changes little; this one promised a visible consequence in an event supporters already cared about. The result could be inspected on the field, which gave voting a stronger reason to exist. The sponsor's role was to make that access possible. The idea therefore connected a brand proposition about ordinary supporters feeling important with an action that was more concrete than celebratory copy.

A small organisation can apply the principle by handing over a genuinely bounded choice. A venue might let ticket holders select an encore from an approved list, or a workshop might let participants choose the next demonstration. The organiser should state what is eligible, how votes are counted and which safety or contractual decisions remain with professionals. Participation loses credibility when the audience discovers that the supposed choice was predetermined or that the rules change after voting.

The alcohol context adds a material limitation. Linking repeated votes to product purchases can encourage consumption or spending, so a responsible adaptation should avoid that incentive and restrict any alcohol promotion to eligible adults. Contemporary coverage also notes objections from football purists and coaches, showing that participation can conflict with professional control. The useful lesson is not that audiences should run everything. It is that a clearly defined, fairly administered decision can make sponsorship feel like access rather than interruption.

Give the vote a consequence

Let participation change something visible and meaningful.

Publish the boundaries

Explain eligibility, counting and decisions that remain with professionals.

Avoid consumption incentives

Do not make repeated product use the route to greater influence.

A small test for another brief

Let an adult audience choose one real event element without a purchase multiplier.

Valid participation and belief that the choice mattered.

Stop if voting creates unsafe outcomes, unfair access or consumption pressure.

• Define a safe shortlist and transparent voting rules.
• Provide one accessible voting route per eligible participant.
• Show the selected result at the event and explain any necessary exception.