Category Archives: General

Quicken Loans and Warren Buffett Team Up for Billion-Dollar Hype Machine

March Madness

Quicken Loans and Warren Buffet hope to make a sponsorship splash during this year’s edition of March Madness. Despite their lack of official NCAA sponsorship, the two seem poised to do just that.

March Madness is about to get even wackier this year, but at what cost?

The annual NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament of champions attracted 23.4 million television viewers last year, says CBS Sports.  Each year millions of armchair point guards try their hand at predicting the outcome of the 64-team bracket in local office pools.  However, Quicken Loans and Warren Buffett hope to initiate much more than water cooler bragging rights this year with what could be considered the mother of all guerrilla marketing tactics.

Quicken Loans founder and NBA owner Dan Gilbert announced a $1 billion prize to any fan that correctly predicts the “perfect bracket” before the 2014 rendition of the NCAA tournament.  This prize is being insured by Buffett, the world’s fourth richest man, through one of his companies – Berkshire Hathaway.  Essentially, Quicken   Loans pays Berkshire Hathaway to cover the billion-dollar prize, should someone enter a perfect bracket in the contest.

While the odds are astronomically low, the buzz is deafeningly high.  The question we ponder is how a brand like Quicken Loans can effectively own this considerable  amount of the positive energy surrounding the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball tournament without paying to be one of the organization’s corporate champions and partners.

While Quicken Loans has sponsored the Carrier Classic, an annual college basketball contest turned outdoor spectacle aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier, since 2011, this does not garner them rights to the NCAA Tournament.  With this announcement, president and marketing chief Jay Farner hopes they can earn an even larger place in the heart of college basketball fans.  But at what cost?

It’s tough to argue the virtuosity of Quicken’s marketing ploy.  The buzz generated by the incentive of a billion bucks should make their investment worthwhile, especially since they are paying pennies on the dollar for Berkshire Hathaway’s insurance policy.  In fact, Quicken could emerge as one of the biggest corporate victors come tournament time.

Each March, companies amp up marketing efforts around the NCAA tournament in an attempt to increase brand recognition and drive revenues.  Busiest among them are NCAA’s official Corporate Champions AT&T, Capital One and Coca-Cola, whose support helps fund 89 different championships and over 400,000 college student athletes nationwide.

Quicken Loans, on the other hand, is not an official NCAA corporate sponsor, thus their promotion isn’t benefiting anyone but themselves, along with a very unlikely new billionaire.

Performance Research studies tell us that modern fans are much more likely to favor a brand when that brand’s sponsorship of an event or campaign adds substantial value to the user-experience, regardless of its “official” status.  In other words, if a promotion can engage consumers on a personal level it becomes considerably more effective.  Thus this billion-dollar bracket contest offers the potential for huge returns for Quicken Loan.

Rather than cough up the dollars necessary to be dubbed an “official” sponsor, Quicken opted for this unconventional move.  However, they will be garnering serious exposure from an event without supporting the organization responsible for putting it on.  There are positive benefits to real people being bypassed by this agreement.

The Billion Dollar Bracket Challenge may ultimately be the best business decision for Quicken.  We’re just not sure that it is the appropriate one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events

International Soccer Sponsorship Provides GM with a Global Reach

Big things have been happening across the pond as October marked the signing of the largest jersey manufacturing deal in history. Manchester United has reportedly signed with Nike for £300 million over the next five years, giving Nike the right to manufacture Manchester United game kits (kits are apparel worn by football players during games) until 2019. This historic deal shatters the previous record held by Spanish football club Real Madrid and sponsor adidas, worth £248 million over eight years.

Not only does Manchester United receive a significant cash infusion, which is likely to be used for signing more star players to their roster, but also included in the contract is the right to sell the jerseys. Sales could generate another £15 million a year, pushing the potential worth of this contract close to £375 million.

The latest partnership with Nike isn’t the only record-breaking deal England’s most commercially successful football club struck this year. This past May, Manchester United worked a deal with Chevrolet for the American car company to become the principal sponsor of the team starting in the 2014/2015 season, replacing insurance company AON. The deal is supposed to run until 2021 and will be worth $559 million.

This deal doesn’t mean the end of AON’s involvement with the club. AON has partnered with Manchester United as the official sponsor of the team’s training facility and practice kits in a $240 million, 8-year deal. They will also assist the club with player analysis and risk management practices. While they were unable to secure the principal sponsorship again, AON’s reinvestment in the Manchester United brand speaks volumes about the marketing power of the world’s largest football club.

The partnership with Manchester United sponsorship solidifies GM’s position in the English Premier League. Chevy has also worked a deal as the official automotive sponsor of Liverpool. The deal with Manchester United did not come without controversy for the American auto brand. GM’s Global Chief Marketing Officer, Joel Ewanick, resigned the day before the Manchester United deal was announced. It has been said that the deal with Manchester United was the breaking point for GM, which asked Ewanick to resign on his own terms.

While there is much doubt in the GM camp regarding the value this sponsorship will bring, they cannot question the global reach their new partnership will extend to them. With over 650 million fans in nearly every country on the planet, Manchester United’s brand is recognized by millions of people all over the world. Receiving that kind of exposure will certainly bring Chevrolet a new level of awareness globally, especially among the 325 million Manchester United fans in Asia alone. Pair those numbers with the current trends in the auto industry outlined by the current KPMG report, and the Manchester United / Chevy partnership seems like a match made in heaven.

It should come as no surprise that Asia is slated to become the world’s next big market for autos. As rapidly developing countries such as China and India begin to witness an increase in the purchasing power for their ever growing middle class, the demand for quality, name-brand automobiles should provide the auto industry with plenty incentive to shift the focus of their global supply chain to Asia. GM has already positioned itself to take advantage of this growth by establishing an Asia-Pacific headquarters in Shanghai, as well as developing several manufacturing plants throughout China, Russia, and India. Three countries that, when grouped together, are expected to surpass the US in automotive sales in the next 5 years.

These moves mark a significant shift in the corporate philosophy of GM, showing that in order to maintain their expansive share in the automotive market, a serious effort needs to be made to get the attention of the people living in developing areas. Although the team at GM recognizes that there is foreseeable future in the Asia-Pacific region, bringing awareness to these people will come at a cost for the American auto giant.

In order to fund their global football initiative, GM has been forced to cut spending on domestic advertising and sponsorships. Last year it was forced to eliminate advertising on Facebook and even cut their ad in the Super Bowl. While their new sponsorship with Man U and the One World Futbol Project paints Chevy in a positive light to footballers everywhere, GM could appear to be neglecting the needs of its own city.

As we mentioned in a previous post, Detroit is desperately seeking a corporate sponsor for its new hockey stadium. However, with a price tag of $650 million, a new stadium for only the US’ 3rd most popular sport pales in comparison with the Manchester United deal. Although soccer fans around the globe will begin to recognize Chevy, this iconic symbol of American ingenuity may risk losing the support of the city that fondly refers to itself as Hockeytown, and built the company up to where it is today.

1 Comment

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events, Uncategorized

Oracle stages remarkable comeback, but it’s still New Zealand’s Cup

Image

While Oracle Team USA may have defended the America’s Cup, they hardly represented the United States as they chose to field only one American sailor. Meanwhile, it was truly a national effort for the Kiwis as even the government gave its support to the America’s Cup challengers, providing $36 million dollars in funding for the program to bring the cup back to Auckland. The people of New Zealand were equally responsible for making this storied competition happen. Not only did their tax dollars fund a large portion of the team that was made up of 80% Kiwis, but the marine industry in New Zealand developed and manufactured most of the innovative technology that was showcased in the cup.

Many New Zealanders have to be wondering about the future of Emirates Team New Zealand. With this latest effort turning out to be unsuccessful, the country will not receive the NZ$600 million dollar boost to the economy it has received in its previous two defenses of the cup. The program’s shortcoming poses a tough question to policymakers in New Zealand: do they continue to spend public money at a potentially unsuccessful program, in a time where the country is considering austerity measures in other areas of government?

The effects of an America’s Cup victory, and defense, are clear to tourism in New Zealand. Contributing about NZ$15 billion to the nation’s GDP annually, tourism in New Zealand has typically seen a 12.5% increase in international visitors when they have the cup. However, this industry has been known to struggle in the absence of the Auld Mug.Image

As you can see, tourism rates in New Zealand were booming after Team New Zealand successfully defended the cup in 2000. When they were unable to defend the cup in 2003, growth in the tourism sector became stagnant and was further decimated by the global recession.

Even though the Kiwis were unsuccessful in this past run, they received a great deal of press from competing for the America’s Cup. Domestically, nearly a quarter of the New Zealand population watched the first weekend of racing. The cup was also broadcast in over 170 countries, bringing exposure to an untold number of international viewers. The United States had over a million people watching each of the first two races. However, these numbers were short lived when viewers dropped from one million to about a quarter million viewers per race for the rest of the series. While Team New Zealand sponsors such as Emirates, Nespresso, Toyota, Omega and Camper expected a greater return in the US considering how much it cost to invest in an America’s Cup campaign, they may have gained the respect and admiration from the famously loyal New Zealand sailing community for making one of the most prestigious and thrilling events in America’s Cup history possible.

With global economic conditions seeming to improve as of late, press from the America’s Cup may have provided the push that will cause New Zealand’s tourism figures start to grow again. While they may not realize the same growth rates as the early 2000s, we’re hoping the New Zealand government will realize a great enough return to justify sponsoring another challenge.

1 Comment

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events, Uncategorized

When Can Stadium Naming Rights Turn a Corporation into a Hero?

hi-res-88084922_crop_north

Corporate America: These fans could be cheering just as mightily for your brand soon enough.

Despite the crippling economic situation in Detroit, it seems like it is “all systems go” for the construction of a new home for the Red Wings in the city affectionately known as “Hockeytown.”

Although the City of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in July in the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in the United States, a state board declared a unanimous vote the same week approving plans for a new downtown hockey arena.  The $650 million project will be funded, in part, with an estimated $285 million in tax dollars – even though the city is in an estimated $18-$20 billion in debt.

Detroit has become a place where police, on average, take an hour to respond to calls for help and 40% of streetlights are powered off in an attempt to save money.  Vacant buildings and empty schools litter the landscape of the former industrial powerhouse.  On the face of it, a new stadium dependent on public funding just doesn’t appear to be an appropriate allocation of property taxes given the dire situation of Detroit city services.

Advocates for its construction, however, view the 18,000-seat arena as the centerpiece in a development plan to inject life into the 45-block area linking midtown and downtown Detroit.  Michigan Governor Rick Snyder hopes the proposed retail, office, and parking space around the arena will create a better long-term environment for the city.

Completion of the area is anticipated for 2017, but to this point, there has been no public mention of any corporations vying for naming rights of the Red Wings’ new home.  The proposed arena would be home to one of the most storied franchises in all of professional sports and would supplant the Palace at Auburn Hills as the premiere indoor concert venue in Metro Detroit.  There is a lot riding on this venue, and it has the potential to breed a very positive influence on a very depressed city.  According to our research, this is the perfect situation for big business to find sponsorship success by playing the hero, rather than the exploiter.

In the first independent study of its kind, Performance Research revealed the critical “Naming Rights & Naming Wrongs” of stadium sponsorship.  When do companies get it right, you ask?  In situations such as this where there is a strong need for a new venue, and there is a deep appreciation for corporate contributions that help make the new stadium a reality, that’s when!

Some pertinent highlights from the study: Nearly 40% of respondents opposed the idea of changing the titles of existing stadiums and arenas to accommodate corporate naming rights, regardless of the reasoning.  However, companies that struck deals with new and developing arenas experienced a positive impact on public opinion with 6 out of 10 fans. Local supporters embraced named stadiums that were new because they often felt they benefitted personally as a result.  ‘Lower taxes,’ ‘more sports opportunities,’ and ‘lower ticket prices’ were the most appreciated benefits cited by fans.

Although hockey is not discussed, this intriguing USA Today infographic highlights the lucrative nature of stadium naming rights today.  Joe Louis Arena, Detroit’s current house of hockey, is one of only three in the NHL without a corporate sponsor.  Our prediction?  Look for the new Detroit arena to buck this trend and shop its naming rights this time around.  And, if corporate America is smart, they will surely listen.

If a corporate sponsor emerges to help facilitate Detroit’s new downtown developments, the results would be tremendous for everyone involved.  A city in desperate need of salvation would see government funding allocated where it is needed most.  The new venue and surrounding infrastructure would provide a well-timed ray of economic hope for Detroit. And its residents, as well as those outside of the area, will recognize that sponsor’s commitment in making it all happen with substantial PR gains in the process.

That is how to become a corporate hero in one easy step.  What’s not to like?

1 Comment

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events, Independent Research Studies

LGBT Community Calls for Boycott of Olympic Sponsors

ImageRussian president, Vladimir Putin has led a series of harsh political actions against homosexuals over the past month, including passing one resolution that bans propaganda of all non-traditional sexual relations.  With Sochi set to host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games, worldwide protest of this reform continues to grow leaving many calling for the International Olympic Committee to demand retraction of Russia’s laws under the threat of boycott.

The IOC has promised that it would work to ensure members of the LGBT community, athletes and spectators alike, safe participation in the games without experiencing any discrimination.  In a recent statement, the IOC claims to have received “assurances from the highest level” of Russian government that the anti-gay propaganda law will not affect anyone participating in or attending the Games.  Despite these assurances, many remain skeptical.  Would you feel safe?

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin recently challenged NBC Universal, which paid $4 billion for exclusive rights of Olympic coverage, to fully disclose Russia’s human rights violations during its broadcasts.  NBC’s response left much to be desired, as they agreed to “provide coverage of Russia’s anti-gay laws IF the controversial measures surface as an issue during the upcoming Winter Olympics.”

Social issues of this magnitude are typically not on the minds of corporate sponsors when they are inking multi-million dollar contracts.  Their concern lies in putting together innovative and effective campaigns that will maximize their ROI.  With the Sochi Games fast approaching, however, opposition to Putin’s war on the gay community is gaining steam.

In addition to the rampant and growing calls on Facebook for boycotting anything Russian, the latest target on social media is aimed squarely at Olympic sponsors.  The controversy will challenge companies like AT&T, Coca-Cola, General Motors, McDonald’s, Panasonic, Samsung, VISA, and Procter & Gamble that have made huge commitments to sponsor all that is positive about the Olympic movement.  However, with the unanticipated turmoil in Russia, they run the risk of being associated with the event for all the wrong reasons.  The controversial nature of this issue leaves them vulnerable to offending the LGBT community to the point where they may lose the group as consumers for years to come.

Coca-Cola, sponsor of the Sochi 2014 Olympic Torch Relay, has a longstanding history of support for LGBT events and causes.  Coke has repeatedly stood behind their statement that they do not condone intolerance of any kind.  Despite this, it has refused to weigh in on the controversy, claiming that it “does not take positions on political matters unrelated to our business.”

Olympic sponsors will continue to feel immense pressure to make a statement against Russia’s policies as the February Opening Ceremony nears.  The Olympics are almost always accompanied with some form of controversy.  This includes, most recently, protests against Beijing’s 2008 Olympic Summer Games due to China’s human rights track record.  However, given the recent passion surrounding LGBT equality and the proliferation of social media since 2008 the potential for an issue to directly impact official sponsors in this capacity is unprecedented.

Regardless of how this plays out, the bigger question for sponsors will remain.  What level of responsibility should sponsors of the Olympics bear?  Where do you draw the line between sports and politics?   Is there truly an effective reaction for sponsors to take that will satisfy anyone in situations like this?

image source

1 Comment

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events

Rough Sailing for America’s Cup and Sponsor Louis Vuitton

ImageTwo months before competing catamarans are scheduled to set sail in the San Francisco Bay for the 34th defense of America’s Cup, the event seems to be in deep water.

Oracle Team USA’s Cup title defense, following a 2010 victory that was the first for an American team in nearly 20 years, was pegged as a groundbreaking affair that would generate an estimated $1.4 billion in the host the city of San Francisco.  The opening weekend of the Louis Vuitton Cup, however, shows little promise for the 2013 rendition of sailing’s finest venture.

The Louis Vuitton Cup is a round-robin tournament featuring global competitors vying for the right to sail against the American team for the America’s Cup crown.  Since 1980, between 7 and 13 teams have competed in this preliminary round.  This year’s version, however, has only produced 3 competitors: Italy’s Luna Rossa, Sweden’s Artemis Racing and Emirates Team New Zealand.  Countries such as France and Spain pulled out of the races, most citing lack of funding as the primary cause.

Following a boycott by the Italian team and an Artemis shipwreck, Emirates Team New Zealand raced to the finish in deserted waters twice over the weekend, earning the first two points of the Cup sailing unopposed.  Safe to say, L-V did not fork over $10 million in sponsorship fees for New Zealand to hold open practices on the bay.

After a rough start to the competition, the stylish French retailer and title sponsor is having second thoughts about its initial investment.  Hopefully they kept their receipt, because L-V is reportedly looking to receive a $3 million refund due to the poor international showing.  Contractually, they are eligible to receive a $1 million refund for every team below six in the tournament.  More teams could be on the way out too, leading to an even greater return to Louis Vuitton.

Sponsorship refunds are relatively unheard of, but this year’s America’s Cup may set the precedent for future sponsorship contracts.  Frankly, nobody expected the event to be such an epic flop.  If an event with as much history as America’s Cup can falter, so can others.  Moving forward, the turmoil in the San Francisco Bay will serve as a cautionary tale for prospective sponsors across the board.

Louis Vuitton has been a Cup sponsor for 30 years.  Prior to its sponsorship, the teams competing in the preliminary rounds were forced to divide the cost of the event among themselves.  Title sponsorship of events rarely leads to such a profound direct impact on the competition as in this case.  Louis Vuitton has been a driving force behind the Cup for decades, but their commitment seems to be wavering.  Maybe their long-term presence with the event led America’s Cup to feel comfortable enough to include contractual provisions allowing them to get some of the money they fronted returned to them.  But if they are able to run away from an unsuccessful sponsorship deal with millions of dollars stuffed back into their designer handbags, other companies may look to follow suit.

It remains to be seen if the Louis Vuitton Cup will prove to be a strange gem in sponsorship history or a frontiersman for protected deals in the future.  Either way, a quiet storm is brewing in the city by the bay.

What is your take on the concept of sponsorship refunds? Comment below and give us your thoughts!

image source

4 Comments

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events

Lack of Funding for US Speedskating Offers Huge Sponsorship Opportunity

Image

A recent USA today article highlights the plight of Olympic aspirants that struggle just to make ends meet.  Olympic short-track speedskating hopeful Emily Scott’s story is highlighted.  She has seen her monthly direct athlete stipend cut by nearly 70%, forcing her to take on the third-shift at a surgical supply factory and apply for food stamps.

Scott’s predicament is not an isolated one, however, as many other Olympic hopefuls are forced to live paycheck to paycheck.  Outside of a few skiers and snowboarders with lucrative sponsorship deals, other winter athletes endure the same kind of financial struggle as Scott.  The US Olympic Committee can only do so much for its athletes, and naturally allocates funding to the athletes with the greatest chance of standing atop the podium draped in gold.  Other athletes are left to fend for themselves as their direct stipends continue to decrease. 

The limited funding the USOC distributes to the lower-profile winter sports provides an ideal opportunity for resourceful sponsorship.  Funding sports like speedskating or bobsledding offer potential sponsors a cheaper method of becoming officially affiliated with the Winter Olympics that can do wonders for their public image.

Prior research conducted by Performance Research consistently suggests that companies who fund struggling Olympic teams hit emotional trigger points with consumers that make the venture a worthwhile one.  Olympics-related sponsorship is particularly good at generating good will, and companies who fill voids such as this one are viewed as altruistic and patriotic leaders in their field. 

US Speedskating currently boasts a 15-member sponsorship roster, but there remains plenty of room for any corporation looking to become an official Olympic sponsor on the cheap.  The domestic speedskating governing body has seen the money it receives from the USOC for direct athlete support cut by about $15,000 from last year.  This is particularly surprising because speedskating is historically USA’s most successful winter sport.  Not only will forthcoming sponsors be perceived as charitable, but their brand will also be associated with athletic success of the highest order.    

Before Tuesday, Emily Scott has raised $195 on her crowdfunding site, gofundme.com.  Since the USA Today story broke, she has raised $35,498 and counting.  This is a testament to just how impactful a new corporate sponsor can be not only to US athletes, but also to consumers across the country.  If people are willing to empty their pockets for an Olympic athlete in need, imagine their perception of a company that would do the same.

It is astonishing that additional sponsorship of US Speedskating is yet to emerge.   To any companies thinking about pulling the trigger on this type of deal: please fire away!  Opportunities like this to generate progressive public sentiment are hard to come by.  Our research suggests that you will not regret your decision.

image source

Leave a comment

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events

Army Pulls Out of NASCAR Sponsorship

The US Army, a presence in the NASCAR experience for nearly a decade, recently announced that it will no longer sponsor a NASCAR team as part of its branding and recruitment efforts. At one point the Army was a primary sponsor of NASCAR. They moved to Stewart-Haas Racing to sponsor Ryan Newmann in 2009. In exiting their sponsorship of SHR, the Army is effectively cutting its sponsor relationship with the motorsport indefinitely.

It’s big news made bigger by the fact that the move comes just days before the House takes up an annual spending bill that includes language intended to prohibit military sponsorship of sports.

The language in that bill is a result of an ongoing effort on the part of Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn) and Jack Kingston (R-Ga) to ban the spending of defense dollars on sponsorships (they’ve targeted NASCAR sponsorship in particular). We’ve been following this political initiative with our Sponsor Eye since Rep. McCollum took up the issue in 2010, and subsequently lost a House vote to keep the military out of sport sponsorships in 2011. You can see some of our tweets about it here and here, with links to Wall Street Journal and USA Today pieces.

While we can’t be certain that the bill is the whole reason the Army made its decision to pull out of NASCAR, we have a hunch it played a not-so-insignificant role. In any case, it’s an issue worth our two cents.

Let’s look at the Reps.’ argument: they assert that the approximately $136 million sliver of the defense budget spent on sport sponsorship is wasteful, as it doesn’t garner enough return in recruitment numbers.

Before moving forward, can we take a step back and look at some math?

The 2012 Department of Defense spending budget is around $707 billion (that’s billion with a B). At $136 million allocated for sport sponsorship spending, Reps. McCollum and Kingston are making a big fuss about a %.02 savings. And at only $8.4 million going towards NASCAR sponsorship specifically, it’s an even smaller margin. With government spending at an all-time high, going to battle over such teeny savings seems pretty petty.

Decimal points aside, who are two politicians with absolutely zero background in sponsorship effectiveness to say that military sponsorship of sport — in particular, NASCAR — is ineffective on the grounds that the recruitment numbers aren’t there? The Army has exceeded its recruitment goals every year since it started its relationship with Stewart-Haas Racing. But that’s almost beside the point.

Having been on the inside of researching military sponsorships, we have seen enormous opportunities and in some cases, very strong return on objectives —but maybe the Reps aren’t focusing on the objectives that really matter.

The goal of a sponsorship is never about sales, or recruits, or numbers alone. Putting a  logo on the side of a race car isn’t going to suddenly bring a spike in sales or enlistees. Humans are more complex than that. Sponsorship is more complex than that. The Army’s relationship with NASCAR is — or at least, should be — about building national awareness and an emotional connection with fans, and not necessarily only those fans who are in their target recruit demographic of 17-24 year old males. There are older and younger siblings, parents, teachers, and coaches who love NASCAR, and who influence the life and career decisions of those they’re close to. When the Army builds an emotional connection with NASCAR fans, they’re not only reaching the people who show up at the event. We’d be interested to see if the sponsorship effectiveness report that influenced the Army’s decision took the more emotional side of the partnership into account, and looked at the Return on Relationship that NASCAR sponsorship is best at.

When government officials recently questioned the value of so-called “junk food” sponsors involved with the Olympics we were left thinking the same thing: politicians should stick to legislation, and stay out of making calls on sponsorship.

Image source.

Leave a comment

Filed under Caught Our Eye, Current Events, General

The End of the Stand-Off

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) finally reached a new revenue-sharing agreement that ends years of international  resentment harbored toward the USOC while it allows the USOC to lift its self-imposed freeze on bidding for future Games, a move it enacted after the 2016 Chicago bid fiasco.

For decades the USOC has received the biggest slice of the Olympic dollars paid by corporate sponsors and U.S. television networks, an arrangement the rest of the Olympic community has resented, and, in turn, one that has contributed to keeping the Olympics out of the U.S. in past years. The new deal, which will begin in 2020, mends this rocky relationship by reducing USOC shares of The Olympic Partner Program (TOP) sponsorship revenues and U.S. television rights. The USOC has also agreed to contribute to the IOC’s administrative costs.

Without a Games held in the U.S. since the 2002 Winter Games, the U.S. could be in the Olympic spotlight again in the near future. As the majority of TOP sponsors come from US corporations — Procter & Gamble, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Dow Chemical Company, and VISA, to name just a few — this should be considered good news for future olympic sponsorship campaigns.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, General