Hey guys! Wow, I'm on a roll! This is so much fun! Now on to the meat and potatoes of it! (I'm starving).
Recently, I read a very interesting article on prdaily.com. It was over the London 2012 Olympic games and it was...interesting. I don't personally follow the Olympics, but they're fun to hear about-especially with so many creative sponsorships! The details were all over Facebook and Twitter.
That being said, it's starting to feel like social media is beginning to actually hurt sponsorships and brands. Sponsors have begun to rely on social media for marketing and advertising, and the new-stricter-rules mean a competitor or spectator could be placed in hot water for posting certain photos or videos onto social media sites. This also means that competitors can't comment on one another's performance or post about a brand (including food they may have eaten) before the competition- I.E. Michael Phelps can't post that a Subway sub propelled him to victory when his sponsor is McDonalds.
That aside, the article brought up a very good point. Sponsors will use what's known as the Halo Affect to ride in the glow of the Olympics. Likewise, though, the Halo Affect can go the opposite way. The sponsor could potentially be affiliated with the Olympics. Confusing, I know... I still don't fully understand how that works. From what I undesrtand, the sponsors 'bask in the good vibes created by the Olympics'.
Another interesting point brought up by the article was the concept of 'Brand Equity'. That confused me at first, because it doesn't state it often. However, if my understanding is correct, Brand Equity is the potential profit a sponsoring brand can rake in because of big events like the Olympics. It's actually quite a simple yet effective method-though very brutal where competition is concerned.
Some brands, like Nike, use a different technique. In their recent Olympic campaign, 'Make It Count', Nike references the Olympics without actually sponsoring it, therefore bypassing the rules set in place in London this year to protect its Sponsors. Their plan? They placed themselves strategically in a shopping center near the main Olympic venue where nearly 70 percent of the spectators will pass by. See what they did there?? They aren't sponsoring, so they bought a space in a nearby shopping center-which is technically legal because they bought the spot and didn't sponsor. Brilliant and just a bit sneaky. I liked reading it.
In my opinion, though, I don't think the Olympic sponsors should be governed by any strict laws whatsoever. If you stop to think about it, isn't our economy based on company competition? The more the competition, the cheaper the product and the better the drive to improve the product to win over competitors, therefore giving the buyer a better chance to reap the benefits of all of it. Personally, I don't think sponsors should get the privilege of bypassing competitors for those key Olympic spots closest to the venue. It isn't fair to the smaller sponsors and businesses who are also trying to make money. They should have an equal chance at it.
Well, till next time guys. I gotta bolt for now!!
No comments:
Post a Comment