What do sponsors bring to The Games

In this tough market any sponsor of the 2012 Games have to do things to really stand out, to really get their name across and increase revenue in terms of customers and business.  It takes a lot of thinking and hard work for the employees of these big brands to think of that special something that will make them stand out. I have been looking at some of the biggest names in the sponsorship line up for 2012 and finding what they have come up with.


P&G

P&G, owners of Covergirl, Gillette and many more are one of this year’s proud sponsors of the Olympic Games. The company have come up with a scheme called “Proud Sponsors of Moms”. The Ohio based company will be paying for the mothers of the Canadian athletes to join them in London.  P&G have committed themselves to provide $500,000 to the families of the athletes so that they can feel complete whilst representing their country.  


The company want to be seen as being socially responsible; this ploy to connect with their audience will reach them on an emotional level. The consumer will see P&G as a company who are really trying to help others and its almost too good to fault them, especially when it comes to mums!

You may wonder why target mothers? Well as major manufacturers of consumer goods, P&G see mothers as the target audience when it comes to buying a lot of their goods. As part of this campaign, the official P&G website has also adopted a system where anyone can upload pictures and videos thanking their mums or simply sending them messages. As a result this will encourage people to visit the website and is a great way of advertising.

https://www.pgproudsponsorofmums.co.uk

Coca-Cola
Coca Cola have said that they are committed to ensure the 2012 Olympic Games are sustainable and environmentally friendly.  One of their ways of doing this is by placing 260 brand new Coca Cola branded recycling bins all around the city centre of Westminster. It has been said that 11,000 tonnes of waste is produced in London every day, this is Coca Colas way of trying to make sure its dealt with in the right way. As one of the Games longest serving sponsors, Coca Cola plan to keep this recycling system going before, during and after the Games.

One of Coca Colas main goals throughout the 2012 Olympics is to motivate young people to get more in touch with the Games. As part of their pledge to make a difference in the UK, the Worldwide Partners want to encourage teens to live healthy lifestyles, be active and try out different sports. What better way to connect with today’s youth than through music.


 Coca Cola have teamed up with one of the U.K’s greatest talents at the moment, Katy B and Grammy award winning producer Mark Ronson.  Together they have become part of the “Move the Beat” campaign, in hope to bring together peoples love of sport with their love for music.  The campaign is split up into four parts:

·         The official Coca-Cola song for London 2012

·         Documentary- Following Mark Ronson travelling across four continents to meet five Olympic athletes

·         Facebook app “Track the Beat”- Allows young people all around the world to keep up to date with the campaign, see snippets of Mark Ronsons travels and share with friends.

·         Coca Cola Olympic Games Pavilion- A building which can be found in the Olympic Park that allows visitors to listen to the official Coca Cola song and make beats of their own

Coca Cola are also hosting another campaign called “Future Flames” which allow inspiring young people to carry the Olympic Flame in the London 2012 Olympic Torch Relay. In a bid to get the teens of London more connected with the Olympics, Coca Cola are providing sporting opportunities to young people in disadvantaged areas. They are teaming up with national charity “StreetGames” to give teens work experience with themselves at the 2012 Olympic Games.

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/olympicgames.html

McDonalds

McDonalds are also focusing a lot of their attention on today’s youth. They are trying to encourage healthy eating and a balanced diet. For the first time they will be serving Happy Meals in The Olympic Park.


McDonalds Champion of Play is a programme that is running throughout The Games which will be bringing children from all around the world to be a part of this unique experience. The programmes website will have features by famous athletes encouraging them to take part in sport and be healthy. The Happy Meals will include fruit, yoghurt and sporty fun books.

Being the Official Restaurant of the 2012 Games, McDonalds will be serving food to athletes, trainers, staff, volunteers and spectators.

http://www.olympic.org/sponsor-mcdonalds


For a full list of sponsors and info check out http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the-games/london-2012-olympic-games-partners.php

Major sporting sponsors involved in abuse scandal

http://www.knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nike

Workers in factorys that produce prodcuts for Nike, Adidas and Puma are being abused by their employers. A recent investigation showed the real conditions the factorys workers are surrounded by.

For a while now PlayFair, an organisation who constantly monitor and fight for the rights of factory workers, have been publishing reports and storys on how the workers are getting mistreated. Amoungst many of the major issues surrounding these work places are; poor pay, long hours and violence. 

 In a recent story published by The Guardian, we are told that factory workers from some of the top sponsors of the Olympics are getting sexually harassed and beaten.  It is claimed that some Adidas workers were paid as little as 9p an hour.

In these major companies the bosses have to make sure their working conditions are up to standard and meet certain legislations. The work done to produce these final garments and products aren’t always done in one factory, there are often stages in the production line. Not many companies will release the names of the suppliers used during this process but this year Adidas have.  Elasteks, a Turkish company who until recently supplied Adidas factory with material for their socks, has recently been dropped by the sporting giants. This is because sometime last year the workers from Elasteks attempted to set up a union against the working conditions of the factory and demand better ones. The demonstration resulted in the factory owner sacking the employee’s involved and moving his factory 280 miles away.

So basically, there are a chain of suppliers Adidas would have released the suppliers names to a certain level. So a company like Elasteks may not have been named, but the company they supply to, Gelal, will have been named. So obviously Gelal would have had to drop any connection to Elasteks so that Adidas would not suffer. When Gelal were checked out for working conditions they passed the test, but a source from inside revealed that the company were still using the remainder of their stock from Elasteks.

According to a report written by a charity called War on Want, this is a summary of who these leading sports brands are employing and what they hope to do through the sponsorship of the 2012 Olympic Games.

http://bit.ly/24CRt

Adidas has spent £100 million on the Olympics, securing its place as the only official sportswear partner of London 2012. In return for its financial commitment; Adidas will clothe the 70,000 volunteers who help run the Games and has the sole rights to produce goods with the Olympic logo. Adidas hopes to achieve over £100 million in sales from its Olympic clothing lines alone. More importantly; it hopes to use the boost to its brand from the Olympics to overtake Nike as the UK’s sportswear market leader – increasing sales across all of its product lines.


 In addition to the partnership with the Games, Adidas is also the official sponsor of Team GB and a range of high profile British athletes including David Beckham, expected to play in the British football team, the 2009 world champion heptathlete Jessica Ennis, tennis player Andy Murray and the current women’s 400 metre Olympic gold medal holder Christine Ohuruogu. Adidas has more than 775,000 workers in 1,200 factories across 65 countries making its products. Almost all of these jobs are outsourced, yet through its code of conduct and its relationships with its suppliers the company has enormous influence over their working conditions, and ultimately their lives.

http://bit.ly/zJTeoS

Nike is the world’s largest sportswear brand, holding nearly a third of the global market for athletic footwear, with global sales in 2010/11 totalling over £13 billion, earning the company over £1.3 billion in profit. It secured its association with the Games through the official sponsorship of a range of high profile teams including the USA and athletes such as Mark Cavendish and Paula Radcliffe.

This sponsorship aims to ensure the Nike ‘swoosh’ logo remains instantly recognisable throughout the world. Through its supply chains Nike influences the conditions of more than 800,000 employees in 700 factories across 45 countries.

Puma’s largest profile sponsorship deal is its relationship with Usain Bolt, arguably the
highest profile athlete taking part in the 2012 Games as he defends his Olympic 100 metre and 200 metre titles. Puma’s manufacturing is outsourced to over 350 factories, a majority of which are in developing economies, involving around 300,000 workers.

After being presented with the report written by War on Want, a Puma representative said that they had found evidence of illegal overtime in one of its supplier factories named in the report and will be investigating further. Adidas also released a statement that they were shocked at the allegations made and would look further into the claims. They said they were “deeply concerned about reports of harassment or physical abuse of workers” and they were going to be investigating straight away.

http://www.knowmore.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nike

So is it right that sponsorship is going to companies that are allegedly paying their workers as little as 72p a day? Although these major companies are also doing a lot of positive things for the Olympics is it still right? It again makes us question whether sponsorship does just go to the highest bidders.

Read more on the article written by The Guardian in regards to this scandal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/03/olympic-brands-abuse-scandal
 http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/Race%20to%20the%20Bottom.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/workers-supplying-olympic-sponsor-have-union-crushed-2375536.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Act

The latest on the Dow sponsorship

Who are they?


A recent blog post briefly touched on the Bhopal disaster that occurred in 1984. The world’s second largest chemical manufacturer, Dow Chemical signed the contract with the IOC back in 2010 for a reported $90 million for a four year cycle, according to The Moscow Times. George Hamilton, Dow’s vice president said in an official press release; “The Games are expected to bring in more than $100 billion of infrastructure spending over the next 10 years”. The chemical company has been involved with the Olympics since 1980. They have made significant contributions of STYROFOAM™ insulations, used in the 1980 and 1988 Winter Games. More recently the STYROFOAM™ brand products have been used in the construction of many Olympic buildings.

Why the negativity towards the company?

http://bit.ly/wgKL7L

The contract has allowed the company to become official sponsors of The Olympic Games 2012. As mentioned before, there has been a lot of controversy linked with this decision. The Indian Olympic team spoke about boycotting the Games for example.

The controversy is in regards to a devastating event which occurred 28 years ago in an area of India called Bhopal. Dow at the time had connections with a major gas leak that officially killed 3,787 people, which is why so many people have bad feelings towards them.

 The families of the people that were killed or injured were paid compensation years later, but it has been stated that not everyone was paid. In December 2011, Dow Chemical’s told the Supreme Court that it will not pay anymore compensation for the victims. In 1989 it was agreed that $470 million was a fair amount for them to pay out. In 2010 a petition was filled out by the government of India requesting an enhanced compensation of Rs 5786 crore for the other victims. 

 At the time of the devastating tragedy, the Union carbide Corporation were held responsible to whom Dow had major connections with. Dow has now taken over the company and is still being held responsible. The protests, petitions and threats to boycott have made it really hard for the company to work through the difficult time and make the sponsorship positive.

What’s the latest?

Even after all the action taken against the sponsorship, the IOC has rejected the appeal by the Indian Olympic Association to strip Dow of their sponsorship rights.  Even though the issue surrounding this sponsorship is still very fresh to many Indians, the IOA has insisted that whatever happens through protesting and petitions, the athletes will still be representing India in the 2012 Games. The chief executive of Dow Chemical Andrew Liveris, has described the protests over the sponsorship as beyond belief”.

 In more recent news it has surfaced that Dow Chemical have hired private intelligence company Stratfor to monitor protest groups.  Wikileaks have published over 5 million emails between the company and global intelligence. Activist groups such as The Yes Men and Bhopal activists have tried for years to get some kind of justice for what happened over 28 years ago. As the officials go through the millions of emails, it’s only a matter of time that more information is released.

Read more about the emails at http://theyesmen.org/stratfor
http://www.mlive.com/midland/index.ssf/2011/03/report_dow_chemicals_olympic_sponsorship_could_double_its_sales_in_russia.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dow-refuses-to-pay-more-to-bhopal-victims/208059-3.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9115567/London-2012-Olympics-Dow-Chemical-sponsorship-protests-beyond-belief-says-CEO.html

Ambush Marketing

In a matter of months we will be seeing the launch of the much-awaited 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The event is being classed as one of sports mega events, with an estimated cost of over £9.3billlion.  For businesses and major brands this is a great opportunity for them to get their names out there. Even companies that are already doing really well for themselves, being an official sponsor of the Olympics can be a huge bonus.  Not everyone can become a sponsor; it is done through a bidding process.  The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is predicted to make £2.7 billion from the sale of the rights for London 2012 broadcasting and sponsorship.

Sponsorship Value

Obviously with companies bidding for sponsorship rights, a lot of money is being made, revenue is constantly increasing.  The IOC has to protect the sponsorship deals and the message they are sending out, they operate a “clean venue” policy.  When we watch events such as the World Cup there is a lot of advertising opportunities for the sponsors whilst the matches are being played. Whereas the 2012 Games will show events taking place in venues that are free of advertising when being broadcasted. Which means sponsors will not receive television exposure. Some might think it pointless to be a sponsor if you’re not getting television exposure, but this is where the IOC are under pressure to ensure the investors receive as much value for their investments as they can.

Competing sponsors/Ambush Marketing

There are many companies who don’t win bids for Olympic sponsorship and they find other ways to get their brands through to the Games. This is known as “ambush marketing”.  This means that other companies associate themselves with the Olympics, but still abide with the legislations that surround Olympic sponsorship.

There was one example that a lot of people will remember which occurred at the World Cup in South Africa 2010. Bavaria, who pulled this famous stunt, bought a whole load of seat to a game between Denmark and The Netherlands, and filled it with blonde women in orange dresses. For people who new the brand, the women’s clothing was recognizable to them as the Dutch beer company.

http://bit.ly/A8cIUj

A lot of people disagree strongly with ambush marketing, which is understandable. For companies who have forked out huge amounts of money to be sponsors, they obviously want exclusivity.  When other brands come along who haven’t got sponsoring rights and try to get their brand out their, official sponsors don’t react kindly.  Examples of how ambush marketers work are as follows; Distribute promotional materials at Olympic-related events, Launch new product lines with Olympic-related names and Operate promotional vehicles as close as possible to Olympic venues

Ways to prevent ambush marketing

The IOC claim to take ambush marketing very seriously. From their point of view, companies are injecting millions of pounds into sponsorship, therefore the IOC have to do their best to support them and make sure they receive as much advertisement opportunities as possible. This effectively means responding to the threat of ambush marketers. There have been some techniques used by the IOC to implement the seriousness of ambush marketing, for example naming and shaming the companies who are guilty of it.

Dalton Odendaal, senior manager of sponsorship for London 2012 explained, “We want to get across that ambush marketing is harming the event and the public, the taxpayer, if the money to run the games cannot be run from the sponsorship deals... Between now and 2012 we will be endeavoring to impress the public that ambush marketing is bad. I think it will come down to how effective we are in our education programme and educating the consumer”

Due to the fact that a lot of the companies who resort to ambush marketing, stay within the legal boundaries surrounding the Olympic sponsorship, it is often hard to take legal action against them. Problems such as ambush marketing are seen as unnecessary issues that get in the way of the real reason as to why we have the Olympics. Some may argue its become one big publicity money making event. Are sponsors taking over the original message behind the Olympics…?

http://e-comlaw.com/sportslawblog/template_permalink.asp?id=483

Should Mcdonalds continue to sponsor The Olympics?

As we all know Mcdonalds have played a huge part in sponsoring the Olympic Games since 1976, but I want to know whether it’s a good idea for fast food companies to sponsor sporting events such as The Olympics.

http://bit.ly/xhJDy4

It has recently come to light that McDonald’s has extended its global Olympic sponsorship for eight years and will remain one the high level sponsors throughout the 2020 Summer Games, being The Olympics Official Restaurant. Other sponsors such as Coca Cola Omega and Visa have also signed up for another 8 years.

"We are very proud of our long-standing partnership," said Don Thompson, McDonald's president and chief operating officer. "It's great to see how we evolved from a national sponsor to a worldwide partner over these years. Every dimension of our partnership shares the same values: excellence, teamwork, giving your best."

The fast food chain is known all over the world and will always be in demand. Even though McDonalds have tried introducing healthier options such as salads and grilled burgers, customers are still partial to a McChicken Sandwich or Big Mac.

McDonalds are making millions through the sponsorship and have even said that their extended partnership has encouraged them to introduce more relevant and meaningful programs within the company. But with a nation that is constantly growing fatter and unhealthier, how will this be possible?

  http://bit.ly/4LPobZ

McDonalds executive vice president, Kevin Newell has said these new ideas will be focused on balanced eating and fun play for children. They will also be involving children from all over the world and teaching them about The Olympics.

Throughout The Games McDonalds will be supplying food to competitors, spectators, trainers, staff etc. Is it right that people at The Olympics are going to be surrounded by companies such as McDonalds and Coca-Cola that aren’t particularly good for you. We look at The Olympics and think of healthy fit people who are all in good shape. Yet as we sit there and  watch these people we are subjected to being tempted by McDonalds.  

Fast food is and easy, convenient and accessible option, there will always be a demand for it. But are they sending out the right message, or is it all just to make money….

http://www.junkfoodnews.net/mcdonalds-olympics.htm

Sponsorship clash over athlete's footwear

After a clash between two of the biggest sportswear sponsors of the 2012 London Olympics, it has come to surface that the athletes may have to step up to the podium with no shoes on.  This is all so that they avoid contractual issues with personal sponsors following a row they had with the British Olympic Association (BOA) over marketing rights.

 http://bit.ly/zHpP1D

As we know Adidas are sponsoring Team GB’s official presentation outfit, yet some athletes are being sponsored by leading competitors Nike. The BOA has been told that if Nike’s athletes are forced to wear Team GB’s official ‘presentation outfit’ they may be in breach of their sponsorship contracts.

A representative from Nike told the BOA that the athletes might have to take off their shoes before walking out to the presentation dais. They have agreed that it would be chaos if this rule was agreed and that the athletes are happy wearing the Adidas tracksuits but should be able to wear footwear of their choice.

The BOA has said that the rule that the athletes must wear Adidas’s footwear at all time, including presentation ceremony’s, would be strictly enforced. The rules also state that this rule does not apply whilst athletes are competing as footwear is classed as technical equipment.

GB athletes such as Paula Radcliffe, Dai Greene and Cavendish, who have been loyal to Nike up until now, may find themselves torn between their longtime supporters and their rivals Adidas. A spokesperson for another athlete has said that enforcing these kinds of rules at this time could prove to be a distraction for the athletes and isn’t necessary.

http://bit.ly/xB3CJU

The BOA has said that under the Olympic regulations, they had the right to prescribe and determine the clothing worn by the athletes and the equipment that is used. Due to the legalities, the BOA has to stick to this agreement and the rules outlined in them.

The athletes also have to sign a heavy weighted contract stating that they will agree to wear and use the team kit as supplied by or agreed in writing by the BOA or the BOA’s official suppliers at all times during the Games period. This also includes footwear, in or at the Olympic Venue, which is also the podium.

There have been disagreements by agents and sponsors about this rule. They have argued that in past years there had been a “gentlemen’s agreement” between the footwear companies, and no one really made a big deal about it.

The BOA responded by saying that the rules and regulations had been in place since 2004 and that other Olympic Committees have similar requirements.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9067763/London-2012-Olympics-GBs-medallists-may-be-barefooted-on-podium-after-BOA-take-tough-stance-over-sponsorship.html