At the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 the USA Dream Team won the gold medal in basketball, defeating Croatia in the final by 117 points to 85, after which the team went up to receive their medals in the official presentation wearing their Reebok sponsored team gear. During the photographs however three players draped themselves in the Stars and Stripes obscuring – accidentally-on-purpose – the logo on their clothing, very mindful of their own personal commercial agreements. All of which was much to the delight of non official sponsor, Nike, given their links with Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley, with Magic Johnson honouring his commitments to Converse.
In doing so they showed a commercial savvy beyond the norm, most of which is still evidenced today as Johnson is a major investor in the LA Dodgers baseball franchise, Jordan is the owner of the Bobcats NBA Franchise and Barkley a successful TV pundit.
For the Olympics of 2012 in London little has really changed since Barcelona, except the Team USA sponsor Nike has a stronger stranglehold on the basketball team, with no opportunity for the swoosh logo to be missed throughout the games – at any time. The all encompassing deal also involves a series of medal podium suits which will be used according to the specific sport, and will vary according to the medal position - first, second or third place. The sophistication of the medal ceremonies these days are a far cry from those days of Ronnie Delany in 1956 when athletes barely had time to gather a tracksuit top and cool down before being handed their respective medals. In London, it will become a mini fashion show and an opportunity for sports giant Nike to display a range of apparel and footwear every time an American wins a medal.
But so sophisticated and detailed have the commercial rights become for the Olympics that no chance goes amiss in the effort to maximise brand exposure to a global audience of 4.8 billion TV viewers. It also offers a means of positioning brands in the middle of a stadium where the official clothing sponsor - archival Adidas - will have paid the International Olympic Committee [IOC] in excess of one hundred million dollars for the privilege. As if to further the headache Nike have also designed special reflective tops for the podium that will capture the flashing light from the photographers to enhance the apparel even more during those medal ceremonies.
Perhaps another unforeseen advantage that official sponsor might deem as an ambush of sorts.
In the case of Nike the US basketball players this time around differ from 1992 as almost the whole team – bar one – is officially sponsored by the company. The one player who does not currently have a deal, Kevin Love, actually chooses to wear Nike sneakers anyway, limiting any potential for conflict. So the team will be happy to wear the podium suits should it be the that the Dream Team of 2012 repeats in London the feat of their Barcelona predecessors. Inevitably that does not suit everyone in Team USA, but given the deal Nike has agreed with the US Olympic Committee [USOC] for the Olympics and Paralympics, few will complain.
Albeit some of the US athletes have launched a "barefoot revolution" against those stringent sponsorship rules by USOC with Adam Nelson, a former World shot-put champion and two-time Olympic silver medallist, launching the protest encourages athletes and fans to Tweet pictures of their bare feet with the tag #SolesForSoul. Nelson set up the campaign after receiving phone calls and emails from other athletes who are concerned about the impact of USOC's rules on their own sponsorship incomes.
But this debate is not unusual ever since the last IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch agreed to allow professional sports people become part of a once amateur only competition.
Although it was agreed in order that the best athletes would compete every four years - in as many sports as possible- it failed perhaps at the same time to appreciate the commercial tensions that would ensue as a result for the individual participants. Particularly in basketball, tennis and soccer where players would have their own commercial clothing deals which inevitably conflict with some of the agreements at national or federation level. A classic example of this in Irish terms being the unfortunate incident in Atlanta 1996 when the most successful female distance runner, Sonia O’Sullivan, was obliged to change in the stadium tunnel from her personal preference, Reebok, to the official Olympic Council of Ireland partner Asics - just minutes before her 5,000 metres heat.
That spectre arose again this time around when in an official photo shoot late last year Ireland’s 2012 Olympic darling, Katie Taylor, was spotted shadow boxing in Adidas gear. Who although an official Olympic sponsor, are not the chosen supplier of the OCI – which still remains Asics.
In the real world of Olympic commerce, even an event is run, a length of the pool swum, or a punch thrown, the conflict of the athletes personal gear, their official federations, or that of the national Olympic selectors, not forgetting the games partner itself, create a marketing hazard which is very hard to police. In fact impossible and with each infringement the generic term ambush seems to become the buzzword every four years. The reality may be that the sponsorship structure for the Olympics has become somewhat archaic in the fast moving world of professional sports sponsorship.
For Adidas that remains the conundrum as they have chosen to support the Olympics officially and have slowly become more prominent at the Olympics since Beijing 2008. This has grown for the 2012 Olympics, where Adidas have actually invested in training facilities in the five London Olympic boroughs in the hope that from a branding point of view, and in the 'eyes of the world', their association with Team GB will be prove valuable. Given the attention Adidas will receive as an official partner, they will hope to improve their second place in the UK market behind Nike.
For Brazil 2016 Nike has signed a sponsorship agreement with the national team, a major corporate victory in the race for market share in fast-growing market. The deal is first official Olympic organising committee sponsorship deal since the Sydney 2000 and will generate strong licensed merchandise sales. In return for the four-year deal Nike will receive marketing and licensing rights to the Rio Games and outfit all Brazilian national teams (except volleyball) for London and Rio Games. Unusually Nike will not outfit volunteers working at the Rio Games, but all still valued close to the US$40 million range. Adidas will have paid USD$127 million for the tier-one sponsorship agreement at the 2012 London Games.
Despite being the official partner of the Athens, Beijing and London Games, Adidas did not compete for Rio 2016 as they already are an official FIFA partner and so the brand will enjoy those benefits two years previous when the 2014 World Cup is hosted in Brazil.
Regardless, the 2016 Olympics sponsorship is a departure in strategy for Nike as the company historically sponsors only Olympic teams, and not the organising committees. In fact it last did so in 2000 when it replaced Reebok as the official sportswear partner less than a year before the Sydney opening ceremony. Reebok had withdrawn from its sponsorship after alleging that Sydney organisers breached their contract.
So in this battlefield the concept of what is ambush marketing becomes rather moot given there are so many tiers of sponsorship, even within the games themselves. Never mind those areas outside the reach of the IOC.
In London this time there are eleven brands that have unfettered rights to use the Olympic Logo and have exclusive access to the venues where they sell merchandise to a captive audience - in order to recover their investment. However, it is the policing of all these commitments that seem to bring the biggest problem and test the enforceability of the Olympic organisers. For instance this month Nike will use the newly opened Westfield Shopping Centre by Stratford Station – beside the London 2012 Stadium - to retail all their products and a place through which all spectators have to pass on their way to the Olympic Stadium.
Whether this constitutes ambush or guerrilla marketing is a futile debate as it has been going on for decades in one form or another at all global sporting events. But in selling the value of Tier One sponsorship for London, or even Tier Two, the IOC promised exclusivity and these days they are discovering that it is not as easy as perhaps in times gone by. So in due course the IOC sponsorship pyramid may need to be revised, As they may want to consider the idiosyncrasies of some deals, such as no official merchandise can be bought without use of a VISA card – as they are official credit card sponsor. The reality of this in times of debit cards and economic austerity may be an inconvenience that consumers feel are no longer unacceptable.
Of more serious concern is the notion that a fast food company can enjoy the at a global athletic event and propagate their marketing message when in truth obesity, diabetes B and a lack of exercise are reaching pandemic levels in the Western World. Not unlike the current unacceptability of a tobacco company or alcoholic supplier, there will come a time soon when a supplier of predominantly high calorie, fatty and salty food will not be deemed acceptable at an event conceived by Pierre de Coubertin when he started the Olympic movement many decades ago: Citius, Altius, Fortius" - which translates in English as "Swifter, Higher, Stronger".
Notwithstanding the clear financial vision that underpins the work done by Samaranch in establishing the viability and longevity of the Olympic Games during analogue times, it may now struggle in the digital era if instant messaging, Facebook and Twitter have their way. In fact, it all weakens the traditional approach and will test the ability of the IOC to really ensure there is a justifiable need to pay so many millions up front for exclusive commercial sponsorship. In realising this conundrum and adapting to the new environment the issue of ambush marketing may not be deemed as polemic in future times. As today it seems mostly self inflicted by the unrealistic expectations set for the sponsors.
Which in the case pf bookmaker may never change given the nature of their product is gambling and online betting, making it a difficult commercial partner for FIFA, the IOC and other Federations such as the European Tour. The danger of associating with any betting activity causes concern at all levels given the proven fears of match fixing and betting syndicates, and so the company will always have to resort to making noise in the current ways. Doing so once again in London with their controversial billboard campaign about an egg and spoon race in London, France.
Whatever about the worries of young people being ambushed by gambling, smoking or alcohol, surely the days of a fast food company will have to also end as well.
©OSM – All rights reserved - Contact @optimum_sports
No comments:
Post a Comment