The Olympic games: operation succeeded, patient passed away
The Olympic Games have always been the most important marketing event of the year. Olympic sponsors have to spend up to USD 100 million each for getting that status and spend often more than double that amount on advertisement and local events to make the most out of this marketing event. In its eagerness to address air pollution, security challenges and other operational issues, the Beijing organizers seems to have forgotten that implicit fact: the Olympic Games is basically about making money.
Listening to the marketing experts makes you think the patient has already died, well before the closing ceremony.
Shaun Rein of China Marketing Research in Shanghai was the first to argue, already well before the Olympics started in Beijing, that all was not well for the Olympic sponsors, who had more than before targeted the local citizenry. He has basically three arguments. The Chinese government has been bombarding Chinese citizens with Olympic messages for the past ten years, making it very hard for the Olympic sponsors to make a real difference with their message. Ambush marketing by non-Olympic sponsors like China's sports wear manufacturer LiNing made life for the official sponsors very hard, a signal that was stressed when former-Olympian Li Ning was also the high-profile athlete to lighten the Olympic flame in the Opening Ceremony. And the lack of creativity among the official sponsors, has been repeated after Shaun Rein by many more marketing gurus.
Since the opening of the Olympic games the logistical challenges for Olympic sponsors increased to get value for their money. A part of the sponsorship packages has to be canceled, because invitees could not get the needed visas because of the security crackdown. Many of the seats in the Olympic events - officially sold out weeks before the opening - remained empty as did the boots of the sponsors. Buying day tickets proved to be almost impossible.
The Financial Times gave a complete post-mortem, but has since hidden its article behind a financial firewall. In it greater China CEO of advertissement firm JWTTom Doctoroff said in that article: "If you turn on any Chinese television station, most of the advertising is absolutely indistinguishable. It's loud, it's got the same voiceover, the production values are primitive to say the least - I mean, they are antediluvian."
It seemed the right moment for sponsors to reconsider their participation in the Olympic games. Coca Cola insisted that it has been an Olympic sponsor as early as 1928 and had no intention of quitting, other acknowledged that the world has since a bit and the Olympic Games might not have followed that change as much as they needed to do.
From a Reuters' dispatch:"Of the 12 global sponsors for the Beijing Olympics, four have not signed on for the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver and 2012 Summer Games in London. The International Olympic Committee sells sponsorships in four-year packages that cover both the Winter and Summer Games."
Among them are the newcomer Lenovo, China's largest computer manufacturer who took over the IBM PC-manufacturing arm, and old-time Eastman Kodak. Johnson and Johnson and Manulife Finance has to committed themselves yet. Again: it is not only the Beijing Olympics that are responsible for that change of mind. From the Reuters' dispatch: "With the help of sophisticated research and new online tools, marketing vogue has shifted in recent years from a mass approach to a targeted one, making it more important for some to invest in attracting that thin slice of consumers most likely to buy their product rather than investing in the grand eyeball magnet that is the Olympics." But the Beijing Olympics have created a new kind of challenge for the London Olympics: how to keep the sponsors motivated?
Again Shaun Rein: ""Most sponsors are going to feel very disappointed with the return on investment for their sponsorships," he says. "There is so much clutter. It's unbelievable how many Olympicthemed messages are popping up all over the place." While the Beijing Olympics might not be the only reason for Olympic sponsors to rethink their position, and Olympic marketing, it has certainly triggered off a lot of soul-searching.
Commercial
Both Shaun Rein and Tom Doctoroff are speakers at the China Speakers Bureau. If you are interested in having them as a speaker, do let us know. If you are interested in other China marketing experts, do check with our marketing page, or get in touch with one of our experts for a tailor-made recommendation.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a05af824-e66b-4094-a825-694e227d9d92)

3 Comments:
This is comparing apples and pineapples. The success of the games as a marketing event and its future, and the success as an athletic event and its future are too completely different things.
Aside from absolutely blistering, scintillating competition, the next Olympics will simply not face the hurdles this one did -- hurdles it has cleared strongly.
London's biggest handicap will be cost. Can marketers afford to spend in the same way when ads will be sold in pounds and not in RMB?
You have gone way overboard here and failed to back up your prognosis with meaningful statistics. First off, I wonder if this alleged dropoff in advertisers from one Olympics to the next is at all out of whack with past history. I am guessing it is not. Lenovo may have been a one time, China thing. Eastman Kodak has been declining in size for years and may have decided not to go forward as a cost-cutting measure. Of course, it is still possible all four of these companies will end up signing on and if they do not, four more may take their place. I find it hard to believe this year's Olympics will have all that much impact on London advertising. Let's look again in a couple of years.
The FT piece is still on Google news at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bb1ae72e-69a3-11dd-91bd-0000779fd18c.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home