The London 2012 Olympics: Brought to you by... CoverGirl??

This week the IOC announced a new sponsorship agreement with international conglomerate Procter & Gamble, a ten year pact which will see P&G join the IOC's TOP sponsorship programme for the 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020 Games. As well as being amongst the biggest and longest sponsorship agreements in Olympic history, the P&G sponsorship is intriguing on a number of levels.

First and foremost, Procter & Gamble as a parent company own a portfolio of over 40 brands internationally. Whilst the rights allocated to P&G have not been made widely available and known, it will be extremely interesting to see what allowances the company have secured from a marketing perspective, and how the company intends to leverage the IOC affiliation from a marketing perspective. One of the key issues Olympic officials have encountered in recent years (and in some ways, created for themselves), has been the proliferation of marketing clutter surrounding the Games. Ambush marketing, despite their best efforts, continues to grow internationally, and show no sign of abating. Moreover, the growing number of official sponsorship opportunities available with the Games (the 2008 Beijing Olympics boasted no less than 63 official corporate partners are various levels), has further complicated the sponsorship environment around the Olympics, and added further complexity to an already difficult industry. How an added 22 officially associated brands - should P&G have the rights - will only compound an already crowded market.

Second, over the past two summers P&G, and specifically chips brand Pringles, one of the key brands expected to benefit from the Olympic sponsorship, have become rather prominent and ambitious ambush marketers. Their campaigns around the 2009 Wimbledon Championships and 2010 FIFA World Cup were much celebrated within the ambush community, and seen by many as a signal of intent. How P&G, Pringles, and the IOC now manage that reputation and brand image should prove worth monitoring.



P&G have been involved with the Olympic Games in the past, specifically in sponsoring the US Olympic Committee, so certainly the foundations exist for a successful partnership. Moreover, few companies boast the international portfolio and awareness as P&G, which bodes well for their own marketing efforts and sponsorship activation. However, in adding another 40+ official brands to the Olympic stable, including a recognized and growing ambush marketer, the challenge has been set...

A Question... Part II

How do sponsors feel about the ambush marketing protecting measures being enacted and utilized by commercial rights holders and event organizers/local governments?

Obviously, as ambush marketing has emerged and grown, and as increasingly the media has become aware of major instances of ambush and attention surrounding such campaigns have grown, sponsors and rights holders have worked in tandem to combat ambushers and protect sponsors better.

But how do sponsors feel when such measures are enacted and put to use? Is it to the benefit of sponsors for rights holders to pursue legal action against offending brands? Would Budweiser have looked fondly on a prolonged court battle between FIFA and Bavaria? How would the public perceive Budweiser should the women accused by FIFA of ambushing been sentenced to jail time? Already those aware of the legislation in place for the London Olympics have protested against the counter-ambush measures in place, as did Vancouver citizens and businesses in regards to the Vancouver Games legislation. South Africa's own protection is regarded as one of the strictest and most draconian in the world, offering sponsors and rights holders swift action and harsh penalties for those found guilty. But for whose benefit?

While protecting sponsors and the investment made by official partners into major sporting events such as the Olympics and the World Cup is of the utmost importance in the current marketing environment, one has to wonder how favourably consumers would have perceived a strict sentence against the Bavaria Dutch Dress girls.

Thankfully we may never know the true extent of such legislation's impact on consumer opinion. Nevertheless, consumer reaction to both ambush marketing and counter-ambush marketing strategies remains both an intriguing and contentious area worthy of our attention, and perhaps further study...

The Best Yet?

The London Olympics are less than three years away, and (in theory) Olympic sponsorship programmes should be well underway by now. How many of the brands associated with the Games, either as TOP sponsors or national level sponsors, can say they're doing as much as EDF Energy at this stage??

Olympic sponsorship is a four year entitlement to tie your brand, your company, your organization to the Olympic Games; unfortunately, more often than not, sponsors wait until the Games begin to properly leverage their investments, focusing largely on the massive broadcast audiences and event spectators. EDF's efforts thus far are merely the tip of the iceberg of what Olympic sponsorship could and should be, and have set the bar for other sponsors.

Here's hoping the rest of the IOC and LOCOG (and more closely to home, VANOC) answer the call and step up their game...

Why?

With Tiger Woods' win at the Buick Open last weekend, the golf world bid goodbye to one of its longest running and most popular tournaments.

On the surface, Buick ending its association and sponsorship with the event seems well-reasoned. With the US automaker, as part of General Motors, now funded by the American government, the company took the decision to cease its patronage of the PGA Tour, deeming it an unwise expense given the brand's financial losses and dependence on public funds.

However, Buick's decision raises an important question for sport managers: if sponsoring an event such as the Buick Open is no more than an expense for businesses, an investment that cannot be justified to American tax payers, then why do companies sponsor sports at all?

Was Buick's investment nothing more than an expense to GM? And if so, why? Sponsorship is no longer about merely providing financial support for events or properties - with the money committed by organizations, it must be a leverageable marketing opportunity as well, capable of providing a return on investment. So the question is, if Buick was unable to gain any market benefits from hosting and sponsoring the Buick Open, and couldn't continue their association with the event and the Tour, then why?