The sponsors of the Olympics 2008 pursued a risky, double-pronged strategy: Within China, they pushed their participation in the games, while simultaneously they wanted to play down their role in the West. In the Internet age, this is an approach that can easily be backfired.
In sports it’s the taking part that counts. There were 60 companies worldwide, which together paid an estimated several billion Euros for the privilege of being part of the Beijing Games.
In return, they received a spot on the hierarchy of sponsors. Sponsors at each level all have different rights when using the Olympic rings in their advertising. Twelve corporations, including Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Visa, are so-called "worldwide Olympic partners" of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). This means that they can use the games worldwide in their marketing campaigns. Each of them is believed to have paid up to $100 million.
There are also national sponsors, for example in the case of Germany, Mercedes-Benz. And at the next level are the sponsors of the Olympic Organizing Committee in Beijing, which include Adidas and Volkswagen.
In the case of VW, the German automaker's subsidiary in China, as well as the two joint venture companies VW operates in the People's Republic, have paid at least $80 million for their share, as well as providing the organizers with 5,000 vehicles in Beijing. The company didn't receive much in return. It can advertise its support for the games in China, but not in any other country. On the other hand, this was looking more and more like an advantage, given the political commotion about the games.
In this age of the Internet, strategies can easily fall flat. In one instance, for example, Chinese patriots became incensed over a Coca-Cola poster at the train station in the northern German city of Bremen, a photo of which they had discovered on the Internet. The poster depicted three Buddhist monks on a rollercoaster, accompanied by the slogan: "Make It Real."
"Germany has begun showing ads for Tibetan independence," wrote one furious blogger. "Coca-Cola, I'm going to remember that. From now on, I won't touch that lousy product."
The beverage giant reacted immediately. The poster was from 2003, the company explained, and the whole thing had nothing to do with Tibetan independence. Besides, the people at Coca-Cola wrote, the outdated poster in Bremen had been removed immediately.
In sports it’s the taking part that counts. There were 60 companies worldwide, which together paid an estimated several billion Euros for the privilege of being part of the Beijing Games.
In return, they received a spot on the hierarchy of sponsors. Sponsors at each level all have different rights when using the Olympic rings in their advertising. Twelve corporations, including Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Visa, are so-called "worldwide Olympic partners" of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). This means that they can use the games worldwide in their marketing campaigns. Each of them is believed to have paid up to $100 million.
There are also national sponsors, for example in the case of Germany, Mercedes-Benz. And at the next level are the sponsors of the Olympic Organizing Committee in Beijing, which include Adidas and Volkswagen.
In the case of VW, the German automaker's subsidiary in China, as well as the two joint venture companies VW operates in the People's Republic, have paid at least $80 million for their share, as well as providing the organizers with 5,000 vehicles in Beijing. The company didn't receive much in return. It can advertise its support for the games in China, but not in any other country. On the other hand, this was looking more and more like an advantage, given the political commotion about the games.
In this age of the Internet, strategies can easily fall flat. In one instance, for example, Chinese patriots became incensed over a Coca-Cola poster at the train station in the northern German city of Bremen, a photo of which they had discovered on the Internet. The poster depicted three Buddhist monks on a rollercoaster, accompanied by the slogan: "Make It Real."
"Germany has begun showing ads for Tibetan independence," wrote one furious blogger. "Coca-Cola, I'm going to remember that. From now on, I won't touch that lousy product."
The beverage giant reacted immediately. The poster was from 2003, the company explained, and the whole thing had nothing to do with Tibetan independence. Besides, the people at Coca-Cola wrote, the outdated poster in Bremen had been removed immediately.
Coca Cola paid millions for the right to sponsor the Olympic Games. But the question that arises here is, is the price marketing strategy worth it, given the negative publicity that surrounded the event? 
No comments:
Post a Comment