Sponsors of Tomorrow

Read the campaign story

Intel introduced Sponsors of Tomorrow in 2009, with an initial May launch planned in the US, Germany and UK. Venables Bell & Partners created the campaign and OMD handled media planning. Playful contrasts between ordinary cultural references and engineering life gave the master brand a broader story than a single processor product.

Intel explicitly disclosed that identified engineers were portrayed by actors. The release documents an integrated international plan, not delivered reach or commercial impact. Its announced lifespan was an intention, not an observed result.

Editorial interpretation: component brands face a visibility problem. Their contribution may be essential while remaining hidden inside another company’s product. A story about the people and culture behind the component can give audiences something to remember beyond a specification. The mechanism is not to replace technical evidence with personality, but to create an accessible reason to care before the audience encounters more detailed product information.

Editorial interpretation: celebrating engineering changes who receives attention in a corporate story. It can recognise expertise that rarely appears in mainstream advertising. Yet a hero narrative can oversimplify collaborative invention or suggest that innovation belongs to a few exceptional individuals. A careful adaptation would show both the distinctive contribution and the surrounding team, while keeping fictionalisation transparent and avoiding unsupported claims about what the organisation will invent next. The resulting brief should name the present audience question, the historical fact being used and the future ambition being expressed. Keeping those three elements separate makes review easier and prevents an entertaining narrative from quietly turning an aspiration into a product claim.

Choose a cultural comparison that clarifies the work

A familiar reference can make a specialist environment approachable, but the comparison should reveal something true. Ask what the audience learns after understanding the joke. If the answer is only that engineers are quirky, the execution needs more substance. Use the contrast to introduce a real practice, constraint or achievement, then let the person’s work carry the interest beyond the initial surprise.

Credit expertise without manufacturing a myth

Identify the people and teams responsible for the work, confirm how they wish to be represented and distinguish performers from actual employees. Avoid reducing a collaborative achievement to a single invented genius. A compact credit or explanatory page can preserve nuance without burdening the film. Recognition is more meaningful when it accurately reflects contribution rather than simply borrowing the prestige of technical expertise.

Connect master-brand interest to a present decision

A promise about tomorrow can feel inspiring while leaving buyers uncertain about what is available today. Provide a clear path from the campaign to current products, use cases and limitations. Keep speculative research visibly separate from released capability. This allows the brand to communicate ambition without encouraging customers to make purchasing decisions on features that are not yet available or proven.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: create a short, openly labelled dramatisation of one technical team’s working practice, paired with an accurate explanation of the current capability it supports.

Measure recall of the organisation’s contribution, accurate understanding of the present capability and whether viewers recognise the dramatisation. Treat entertainment value and purchase relevance as separate questions.

Stop if the story erases collaborators, invents an achievement or leads viewers to assume that speculative future capabilities are already available.

• Interview consenting adult contributors and agree credit and portrayal before writing the script.
• Use actors only with clear disclosure and avoid implying personal endorsements that were not given.
• Have technical and historical reviewers check the claims, including the distinction between research and released products.