Tag Archives: IOC

Why We Said NO to Sochi

 Image

As many of you may know, Performance Research founders Jed Pearsall and Bill Doyle have been consistently attending & analyzing the on-site activities at Olympic Games for over 30 years.  In fact, Jed’s first Olympic event was “Miracle on Ice”- the legendary USA vs. USSR hockey game held during the 1980 Lake Placid Olympic Winter Games, where Jed’s Mom bought the tickets from a sidewalk scalper for just $25 each. 

Since Lake Placid, Jed has attended 13 out of the last 15 Olympic Games (Winter & Summer), with Doyle attending eight of his own.  This bi-annual pilgrimage has been a mix of business and inspiration, allowing us to provide observations and insights to sponsors worldwide, while also being reminded of how lucky we are to work in such a fascinating industry.

However, starting with the controversial and antagonistic laws against gay rights propaganda passed by the Russian government, we both felt we could not, in clear conscience, attend these Sochi Games.

Now, following weeks of reports of possible terrorism, U.S. Department of State warnings, reports of the near certainty of computer hacking against any and all devices brought into the country, and most recently the U.S. Department of Homeland Security bulletins to airlines warning of the potential threat of explosive materials being contained in toothpaste tubes, we are convinced more than ever that we made the right choice.   

Apparently we are not alone–  just yesterday TMZ reported that AB-InBev is not hosting its traditional “Club Bud” party at the Olympics, suggesting that the threat of terrorism is just too large even for corporate America.

While we are disappointed to not attend the Games, we are proud of our integrity that drove the decision.  And, we will always question the rationale of the IOC (especially when we could have been headed to competing bid city Salzburg, Austria right now instead of staying away from Sochi).  So for this Olympic Winter Games, for the first time in nearly three decades, you will be reading Performance Research updates (now tweets) written from the viewpoint of our couch instead of from the bleachers.

See you in Brazil!

More Links:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/world/europe/russia-sochi-winter-olympics/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/sochi-visitors-report-hotel-horrors-dangerous-conditions/

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/russia/140203/6-openly-gay-athletes-sochi-olympics-russia

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

Olympic Food and Drink Sponsors: Some Not “Lovin’ It”

Should properties only accept sponsors whose brand images align exactly with their values? Last week, the London Assembly gave their answer: when it comes to the Olympics, absolutely.

At their most recent meeting, the governmental body called for a ban on Olympic “junk food” sponsors — McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury, and Heineken were called out specifically — citing concern that food and drink sponsors who produce high calorie or perceived unhealthy food and drink products undermine the values of the Olympic Games, and could contribute to the growing problem of obesity in the UK.

While the London Assembly might have their hearts in the right place, we think they need a super-sized serving of perspective.

First, let’s talk dollars and cents (or pounds and pence). According to a study conducted by official Olympic sponsor Visa, the UK will receive a huge economic stimulus from the Games worth an estimated £5.33 billion — a number that could have been significantly lower without the sponsorship dollars paid by McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury, and Heineken, who all contribute to the Olympic Committee’s ability to make the Games a success. The boost the Games and its sponsors contribute to the UK economy far outweigh the possibility that their ties to the Games might persuade Brits to reach for some fries or a soda. We’re surprised that a governmental organization doesn’t get that.

And frankly, we don’t buy that companies like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, who have received the most flack from critics, don’t exhibit values that align with many Olympic ideals. The notion that McDonald’s is nothing but a coronary-inducing beef patty and french fry slinger is an antiquated one. The global restaurant chain has made serious strides in offering up healthy options on their menu. More nutritious items — grilled chicken, entree salads, fruit sides, and low-fat dairy snacks — have been a big part of McDonald’s ability to succeed in the modern marketplace, and to some extent, may even have been inspired by McDonald’s early days of serving athletes at the Olympic  village. Those options will all be available for sale at the Games.

And Coca-Cola expects that over 75% of the drinks it sells at the Olympic Games will be water (Schweppes Abbey Well Water is a Coca-Cola brand and is the official water of the Games), juice, or sugar-free beverages. Again, the idea that Coca-Cola only produces syrupy fizzy soft drinks is misinformed.

The food service giant and beverage behemoth are also showing that they value the Olympic ideals of athleticism, unity, and excellence with Games-themed initiatives aimed at boosting physical activity. McDonald’s plans on giving away 9 million activity toys with their happy meals during the Olympic Games; Coca-Cola sponsored a “free swim” program in the UK in conjunction with their sponsorship.

And therein lies the real takeaway: McDonald’s and Coca-Cola know that an Olympic sponsorship is the perfect opportunity to drive home the fact that their brands can be part of an athletic lifestyle, and that as corporations they value the spirit of the Olympic games. Sponsorship isn’t always about brands selling the masses more burgers, sneakers, or car insurance.

Bottom line?: we think the London Assembly should leave sponsorship to the experts.

Oh, and London Assembly! It looks like Mayor Johnson agrees with us: Click here to watch a video clip of Boris Johnson inviting Americans to come to London to drink “fizzy drinks.” 

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events