The double-edged sword of Olympic sponsorship
March 15th, 2008The high level of interest in the Olympic Games, as well as its unparalleled viewership makes the event extremely attractive to marketers. This is why official sponsors and clever guerilla marketers alike have used past Olympics as an opportunity to launch a marketing stunt that could win attention across the globe.
This time around, however, corporations would be wise to consider the possible downsides of being associated with the Olympics. While the event has been dubbed the “Green Olympics” by the Chinese government, activists have decided to go with another G-word: genocide. China’s support of the Sudanese government has dominated recent headlines but is just one of the many potential landmines sponsors could find themselves stepping on. Other issues range from the environment to Tibet to the country’s human rights record and beyond.
Steven Spielberg grabbed headlines a few weeks ago by stepping down as an artistic adviser for the Games, and while he cites his conscience, there is no doubt that he received a good deal of pressure to withdraw his support. Omega was also forced into a tight spot when George Clooney, who appears in the company’s marketing, pressured the watchmaker on the issue of Darfur. Omega’s quick response was smart and on-key; a fellow PR practitioner and colleague of mine praised Omega’s deft handling of the situation. But the need for such a response only goes to show the downside of being an Olympic sponsor.
In fact, this could be an extremely tricky issue to navigate. An effective crisis response relies a good deal on the management of different stakeholders. As any Olympic media coverage has the potential to span local and international markets, embattled sponsors will have to deal with an array of stakeholders with conflicting interests. Managing the issue with both local and international audiences in mind may call for a gravity-defying tight-rope act from sponsors.
From a business standpoint*, companies that have invested millions in obtaining sponsorship as well as marketing touting their sponsorship would not be advised to bail out now; sponsorship is still much more of an asset than a liability. These companies can take solace in the fact that although activists of all stripes will work to associate the Games with a variety of issues, it appears that they have, at least in the minds of the majority, not yet successfully done so. However, that can change. Sponsors need to examine the possible consequences of their sponsorship and prepare a crisis team to ensure that no potential pitfall turns into a very real pratfall.
*Of course, what companies should do from an ethical standpoint is another beast entirely.
