How Olympic Sponsors Can Gain Positive Media Coverage Beginning Right Now
Sponsors of the Paris Summer Olympic Games (July 26 to August 11) will soon begin promoting their connection to the games. Some brands will claim that they are Olympic sponsors because they support the U.S. athletes. (You might call me a cynic, but I don’t believe that’s the reason.) Other brands might say they support the Olympics because it brings people together. (You might call me a cynic, but I also don’t believe that’s the reason.)
But the one thing that probably will not be said is what I believe is the real reason brands spend millions of dollars on Olympic programs: They hope that the ROI will increase sales that will last forever in current domestic and foreign markets and give them an inroad in new foreign markets.
Everyone who follows the Olympics is aware of the International Olympic Committees’s (IOC) awarding of its propaganda – rich games to totalitarian governments like Russia and China
In the past, some brands have been criticized for supporting the Olympics when it is hosted in a totalitarian country and have come up short when asked the reason for doing so.
Here are a few examples that put brands on the defensive:
During the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, brands had to curtail their plans because of the coverage of Russia's anti-gay laws.
Many brands downplayed their involvement in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, postponed until 2021, because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
During the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022, American sponsors were criticized by human rights groups and prominent U.S. politicians for supporting games played in a country devoid of human rights.
Even in Paris, a democratic country, brands might be the subject of attacks from groups opposing the games. For months, thus far, media coverage leading up to the athletic competitions is mostly about bribery, possible terrorist attacks , labor strikes and countries boycotting the games because of the IOC's insistence that athletes from Russia and Belarus be permitted to compete. And there’s a good chance that protest groups will also zero in on sponsors of the games, as they have done in the past.
There are several tactics that U.S. sponsors of the Paris Olympics, and those in future Olympics, should consider which might provide protection from both special interest groups’ attacks and the resulting negative media coverage:
Sponsors should rethink the use of individual athletes in their promotions, lessening the chances of a sponsor being associated with athlete-gone-bad or is involved in a political controversy. Instead they should sponsor entire teams.
Sponsors should use their economic muscle to prevent the IOC from again awarding its propaganda-rich vehicle to authoritarian governments.
Sponsors should publicly speak out against awarding the games to totalitarian countries.
Sponsors should sit down with activists groups in host countries to hear their grievances and take them into consideration before planning their media strategy.
Sponsors should appoint an ombudsman to maintain continuous contact with activists groups in the years prior to and during the Olympic Games.
Sponsors should insist that activist groups’ peaceful protests in host cities are not stifled.
Sponsors should insist that American athletes be permitted to publicly speak out about political matters in host countries.
One of the negatives of being a sponsor of a mega-event is that most get lost in the clutter of others’ sponsorships. A sure way to stand out from the pack, beginning right now, is for sponsors to adapt some of the above suggestions and make it known to the media The Paris Olympic Games provides the perfect platform for U.S. sponsors to publicly go on record against the IOC awarding the Olympics to totalitarian countries and insist that only democratic countries host the games and for letting athletes speak out without fear of being punished by the IOC. Free speech is a staple of American and French democracy and U.S. sponsors should not let it be abridged by a sports organization, which despite its high highfalutin talk is what the IOC is.
By being pro-active, doing their homework and throwing away the old playbooks, sponsors can position themselves as open-minded entities willing to listen to all viewpoints and insist that the athletes (without which there could be no Olympics) be permitted to express their opinions and protest without fear of retribution by the monarchism-like IOC. It just might protect sponsors in the future from attacks by activist groups. At the very least, it is certain to result in “good press,” which along with increased products sales is why sponsors spend the big bucks on the Olympics and on other mega sporting events.
