The dreaded “L” word: legacy. It was a word debated and defined endlessly around the London 2012 Games and even now, four years on there seems to be no resolution as to whether the enormous investment in bringing the Greatest Show on Earth to the United Kingdom has had a discernible effect on improving levels of long-term participation in sporting activities and therefore, the health of the nation. The Games have definitely had an unbelievably positive effect on urban regeneration in a too-long ignored corner of London (as it did on Sydney, Barcelona and elsewhere) and no-one can deny that the Games itself were a magnificent success, right from the breath-taking Opening Ceremony, through Super Saturday and into the curiously under-rated Paralympics but there still remain questions about whether the juice was worth the squeeze.
Writing as a marketer, I am not especially well-placed to write about the effect of the Games on participation but would rather explore the marketing legacy and most especially query whether the current mindset of organisers and sponsors alike means that they are missing a trick and leaving a lot on the table insofar as a long-term return, not only for each of them but also for the host country and its people and the Olympic movement in general.
London 2012 was an extraordinary event also from a marketing perspective. The rise of social media allowed the mobilisation of campaigns against multiple sponsors – Including McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Cadbury’s, Dow and Atos – for a variety of reasons, leading an exasperated Lord Coe to reiterate the mantra of the sponsorship industry – that the Games could not happen without the sponsors – but called on those sponsors to tell their stories more effectively.
To tell a story effectively, one actually has to have a story to tell and it appeared, from this writer’s perspective at least, that there wasn’t a great deal of thought put into telling those stories. One of the best campaigns around the Games – adidas’ #takethestage – became #stagetaken almost as soon as the Closing Ceremony drew to a close, giving the impression that thoughts had already turned to Sochi and Rio.
London 2012 had 44 corporate partners at varying levels all of whom gloried in the Games for their three-week duration but very few of which remained for much longer. This is a recurring theme: brands spend multi-millions on rights fees (or contribute the equivalent in products and services) and then many millions more in activating that partnership, all around a very limited window and In competition with not only the rest of the “Olympic Family” but also other brands trying to leverage some association with the magic of the Games.
Given that the Games operate in a quadrennial cycle, wouldn’t it be a great story to flip the model and spend the first four years working with the host nation/city on addressing social issues and instead of clamouring for share of voice in the immediate lead up to the Games, use the power of the World’s gaze first to tell that story and then to use it as a platform to launch longer-term legacy programmes?
In the United Kingdom we have endured nearly eight years of austerity and public cuts to sporting services have exacerbated an even longer-term trend of the sale of sporting facilities and the downgrading of physical exercise on the schools curriculum. At the same time we’ve seen the rise of digital media, smartphones and video gaming in direct competition for the time of the nation’s youth. Is it any wonder we are also facing mounting issues of obesity and all the complications it brings amongst that same age group?
I recall receiving a phone call from a news outlet just after Super Saturday asking for my opinion on how much Jessica Ennis might earn in endorsements following her outstanding performances. I told the caller that in my view that a much more pertinent question might be to ask why – when there was so much corporate money pouring into the Games – the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield (where Ennis was first discovered) was under threat of closure (and subsequently closed). There was a story there, ready for someone to tell. Someone could have been the hero – if not of Don Valley – but grass roots sport in general.
Perhaps Lord Coe was right and the sponsorship industry should be better at communicating all the good that it does but at times it just doesn’t help itself. The smart brands now are not those trying to sell their products and services directly but those demonstrating how those products and services can improve our lives Our increasingly mobile society (in terms of using mobile platforms and social media) can make or break a campaign and Google’s “Generation C” in particular are especially adept at spotting inauthenticity. This is a time where brands could and should be tapping into its customers’ social conscience and involving them in creating compelling stories that generate a feel-good factor. The goodwill that could be generated from taking a long-term view and demonstrating, over-and-above the huge rights fees that the Games really can’t happen without its sponsors should be pushing at an open door.
As austerity continues and ambiguity remains over the long-term legacy of major events, potential host cities will think very carefully about whether to throw their hats in the ring. The Olympic Act – although well intentioned – often went too far and on occasion LOCOG was guilty of forgetting why London wanted to win the Games in the first place. Throw in growing public suspicion of governing bodies following multiple corruption and doping scandals and it’s clear to me that the whole Olympic movement needs a rethink on the positive role it plays in our lives.
Looking to Rio, there is a very real cloud hanging over the 2016 Games. The outbreak of the Zika virus has caused great suffering in South America and great uncertainty amongst athletes and visitors alike. Of course sponsor activation budgets pale into insignificance versus public health spending but Brazil’s economy is faltering and any help must be better than none. Wouldn’t it be a great story if some of the Rio Games’ partners announce they were diverting at least some of their spend away from endorsing athletes or hosting corporate guests into helping to find a cure for this crippling disease, purifying threatened areas and to establish some form of long-term support for its unfortunate victims?
The Zika outbreak is a single example but speaking more generally, taking such an approach not only enriches the Games itself but should also help provide greater return on investment for the host city, create a much more authentic and empathetic connection between sponsors and target audience(s) and go some way to helping eradicate some of the scepticism which currently surrounds much of elite sport. By creating more sustainable value for all, the Olympics will continue to thrive.
Rio will provide a wonderful platform for its sponsors to communicate with the world. Wouldn’t it be great if those three weeks were only the beginning?
