Adidas Olympic background info and history

At first glance, Adidas don't seem to have a lot of history with the Olympics. Even on the London 2012 partners page of the website, they are only listed as a 'London 2012 Official Partner' rather than a 'Worldwide Partner', but that would be a wrong assumption. 

Adidas have slowly become more prominent at the Olympics, and it started to become a major partner at Beijing 2008. This has grown more and more until, for the 2012 Olympics, it was revealed that Adidas have actually invested in training facilities in the five London Olympic boroughs. 

So Adidas have been doing rather well at contributing to the London 2012 legacy and being part of the Olympic family, but what's in it for them?

Well, from a branding point of view, the 'eyes of the world' will definitely be a good start, as will their association with Team GB and athletic success throughout Olympic history in general, as this Adidas heritage page points out well.

It seems that, given the attention Adidas will receive as an Olympic partner, they are hoping to harness it to become the 'biggest sportswear company in the UK'. They are currently in second, place behind only Nike. 

So, Adidas's investments and partnerships aren't entirely about creating goodwill. Although no-one  can condemn the fact that Adidas's facilities will be free to use to the public after the games, there can't be any doubt that it is just a part of Adidas's plan to try and make the UK an even more lucrative marketplace for themselves.

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

BP branding becomes graffiti target

Showing that, even in times of protest, the Brits are capable of displaying a sense of humour and wit, billboards depicting BP's slogan, 'fueling the future', have been changed to "f***ing the future", as it was revealed that, all across London, BP's signage has become the victim of graffiti. Presumably the irony of the 'artists' f***ing up a sign on the way to creating that message wasn't lost on them, although it has become the basis for a website of the same name, but the response by the community at large has been staggeringly predictable.

Regardless, the stunt has done an impressive job of creating awareness about BP's sponsorship deal with the games, with activists stating their aims as being: "[To] escalate public debate of BP’s sponsorship after headlines in recent months had focused on the Dow controversy."

There have also been various Tweets promoting the news, with standout links coming from here and here, to give an example of just two.


While it is probably to be expected that the news would be greeted positively by protest and action groups alike, and that it would be seen as good that people are apparently showing up the fact that money is triumphing above 'true' ethics, there is a serious point to be raised about how these messages influence the public.


These protests are meant to show up BP's supposedly indecent actions, but when these messages become carried, celebrated and promoted by people with Twitter accounts called Agentur Radio Utopie or the London Anarchists, for example, there is a danger of the debate becoming poisoned.


Why? Well, Twitter may hold the answer to that question. The Agentur Radio Utopie account has just 470 followers, and isn't even based in Britain, it's based in Berlin. The London Anarchists account is marginally more popular, being followed by 1,406 people. So, there's a worst case scenario of 1,876 people who want to be associated with terms like 'anarchists' and 'utopia'.


What's the problem with that? Anarchy and utopia are terms that are more often than not seen as extreme and divisive, due to the movements they are associated with. They are terms that the majority more than likely won't back. Take the London Anarchists for example. Nearly 8 million people live in London, and 1,406 people follow their Twitter page. Even assuming that all of them live in London, there's 7,798,594 people unaccounted for there, or they represent 0.01803% of London's population, whichever you prefer. A minority? You bet, resoundingly.


The very fact that they are such an invisible minority will not help their cause, and it's the exact same reason why their backing of such a campaign will do them no favours. Our entire society is based on the idea of majority rule, from General elections to strike action to deciding what sport is played in a PE lesson. Will 7.8 million people see the point of a campaign backed by 1,406 people. No, because the maths just doesn't add up.

BP Sponsorship Fallout

A glance at the comments accompanied by The Guardian's article retweets suggest that some people in the Twittersphere think they know why the company is playing a major role in the Olympics, with the above comment in particular mentioning a line amounting to 'money being unable to buy everything'.


He's right of course, it can't. But BP made $25.70 billion in 2011. If BP have agreed to sponsor the Olympics to the tune of even 1% of that, which is unlikely, then all of a sudden, from a business perspective, with events to organise and costs to pay, the deal looks incredibly attractive, especially in a capitalist world where budgets have to be met and profits will always be the number one priority.


When the Games begin, and millions are watching from around the world, and the British flag is being waved in anticipation of medal success, the cheers will be for putting on a Games that will make Britons proud. Those cheers won't suddenly turn to jeers come the closing ceremony, because we won't suddenly start thinking about the gulf of Mexico again, or even BP...


It's true to say that BP has attracted a fair bit of negative attention, and in truth, the ethical and financial whirlwind that is Olympic sponsorship can't truthfully claim to be squeaky clean either.


For the latest evidence of that, some might say unnecessarily, bold claim, you only need to go back 3 days to the above article.


The 34 signatories featured in the letter mentioned in the article above all, some would say rightly, take exception to the fact that the company formerly known as British Petroleum is officially listed as the major 'environmental' Partner for the Games.


The question on everyone's lips is a simple one... How on Earth can a company that was named as the 'responsible party' by the US Government who, just 22 months ago, filled the sea with an estimated 300 million barrels of oil, be suitable for an Olympic environmental sponsorship/partnership?


It's an uncomfortable one for BP, sure, but given the millions of people who will be watching the Games in the summer, it is an understandable deal from their viewpoint.


But for the IOC and the London organising committee, the 'understandable' section of that above statement can be removed, and they are just left with 'uncomfortable'.

Top Twitter contacts for the Olympics

This logo is not my own work. © 2012 Twitter

This is a list of useful Twitter contacts that can be used while investigating the Olympics.


General Olympics:
@gamesmonitor
@LO2012
@hannengland
@2012cushing
@Paralympic
@alexhuot
@DaveGordonBBC
@DCMS
@jacquelinmagnay
@ashlingoc
@Jeremy_Hunt
@mirrorolympics
@London2012Fest
@TimesLondon2012
@PressAssoc2012
@NickHopeBBC
@iocmedia
@UKA_athletics
@Lon2012don
@Telegraph2012
@BBCLdnOlympics
@SkyOlympicOrla
@youtholympics
@London2012HQ
@TeamGB
@sebcoe
@BBC2012
@London2012
@Olympics


Sponsor Accounts:
@UPS
@ThomasCookUK
@Deloitte (and @DeloitteUK)
@CiscoUKI
@ArcelorMittal
@AdeccoUSA
@AskLloydsTSB
@EDFofficiel
@BTLondon2012 (and @bt_uk)
@British_Airways
@BP_America (and @BPGlobalPR)
@BMWGroup
@adidasUK
@VisaEuropeNews
@SamsungMobile (and @samsunguk)
@pgthankyoumom (and @ProcterGamble)
@panasonic
@omegawatches
@McDonalds (and @McDonaldsCorp)
@generalelectric
@DowChemical
@Atos
@CocaCola
@CadburyUK

Dow Olympic sponsorship controversy

This logo is not my own work. Copyright © The Dow Chemical Company (1995-2012).

The Guardian recently ran with a story discussing Dow Chemical's controversial sponsorship of the Olympic Stadium. 

It raised an interesting question with regards to Olympic sponsorship. The controversy couldn't exactly be unexpected given the company's alleged 'liabilities' relating to the 1984 Bhopal disaster, but a very dangerous message has been sent out, possibly akin to "as long as they fulfil their £7 million part of the deal for the wrap that will go around the stadium, what's the problem?"

This isn't the only thing the company will be doing either, as it also has a $100 million sponsorship deal with the IOC itself.

All this comes in the context that the "(Olympic) Commission found that there was no coherent strategy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon emissions". There could have been, but an initial plan to provide a wind turbine on the site proved 'impractical'.

This isn't the first time questions have been asked, and it won't be the last - but it is difficult to take given the previous boasts that London 2012 would be the 'greenest ever'.

Even a simple Twitter search for 'Olympic sponsorship' will guide you towards a collection of Tweets made during the Dispatches program covered in an earlier post, with the basic message of those being apathetic at best, and something similar to "it's no surprise that those sponsoring the games have access to tickets".

The Metro also recently reported about Olympic sponsorship, and carried quotes suggesting that "[The] 2012 Games has 55 sponsors, including Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Visa".

There is an obvious elephant in the room here too. McDonald's? A fast food company, sponsors of the Olympics? I doubt somehow that the athletes looking at their advertising hoardings around the various venues while the games are on visit their restaurants too often. 

Clearly the partnership is important to both sides, and McDonalds do seem to acknowledge corporate social responsibility, with them training 70,000 volunteers.

But perhaps even better evidence of corporate social responsibility and a good PR opportunity would be to train the people who eat there more than they should!

Dispatches

image via Dispatches website

Tonight on dispatches on channel 4 there is a great documentary revealing the undercover story of London2012 Olympics. There have been many issues surrounding the ticket process of the summer Olympics in the UK. 9.3 billion pounds has been put towards the Olympics by taxpayers within britain and this was meant to be a games for the people. However, many top businesses and companies have managed to secure premium seating and tickets within this supposedly "fair" ballot. Many are now questioning the legitimacy of the london Olympic games. Sponsorship is part of this legitimacy issue, multi national corporations have secured million pound sponsorship and exclusivity deals. When in actual fact many of those companies have little to do with the Olympic message conveyed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). I plan to delve further into scandals surrounding deals made within the summer Olympics and aim to contact many companies about what message their sponsorship is conveying to the general public.