April 4, 2008
Beijing Olympics Challenges Sponsors
By Tom Ryan
China’s role as the spot for the 2008 Olympics appears to be leading to a big payday for PR flacks. According to the Associated Press, a few sponsors of the Games, such as GE and BHP, have already turned to PR specialists for advice to mollify activists pressing for change on Tibet, Darfur and other issues without angering China.
The Olympics almost always attracts threatened and actual boycotts, but China is taking activism to another level. Most recently, protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule – and Beijing’s crackdown – has caused the most concern to sponsors. Darfur activists have been prodding sponsors to lobby Beijing to help pressure Sudan to end the conflict there. These and other long-standing issues around press freedom and human rights in China are only expected to ring louder as the games approach in August.
All this has left the event’s global sponsors, including Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Johnson & Johnson, wondering whether their brands will end up being associated with the Games for the wrong reasons. On the positive side, this year’s Olympics offer a premier advertising platform in the fast-growing China market.
So far, sponsors are insisting that they should stay out of politics.
Lenovo, the only Chinese company among the top 12 major sponsors, took into account possible activism when it made its plans.
“All of these potential considerations are taken into the planning process,” Robert Page, the company’s Olympics PR manager, told the Associated Press. “The potential for people to express their opinions is certainly something we have taken into consideration, and we would work with [the Olympic committee] on anticipating.”
The sponsorship is aimed to help establish Lenovo as a global brand following its 2005 acquisition of IBM’s personal computer unit. Asked whether he worries about tarnishing the brand’s image, Mr. Page said, “That’s not a concern at this point.
He added, “There is no question that the Olympic Games are a powerful force for peace. We believe that the Games will focus on all the good that is being brought to China, and we are proud to support that.”
Sponsors also clearly want to avoid jeopardizing market access to China by doing anything that might upset communist officials. According to The Economic Times, Beijing has retaliated in the past for unwanted foreign actions by canceling contracts or restricting market access.
“It’s obviously a fine balancing act that every single Olympics encounters,” said Michael Payne, a former marketing director for the International Olympic Committee who now works as a consultant. “The PR departments of each of the sponsors have got to be sensible in how they respond.”
Typically signed up for multiple Games, many of the global sponsors had little choice in deciding to sponsor the Beijing Olympics.
Discussion Question: How would you assess the brand image risk to sponsors of the Beijing Olympics? If possible, should sponsors have avoided the Olympics this time around? Generally, what’s a wise PR strategy for sponsors at this point?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
To sound a cynical note (just for a change), it strikes me that short memories will not necessarily link sponsors with any uncomfortable or horrific events. I’m not sure how many will hold sponsors responsible or blame them for doing their best to make money which is what they are all about.
Secondly, I strongly believe that China is well on its way to owning the world and those sponsors do not have either the inclination or temerity to oppose their buying/selling/lending/manufacturing power. I can hear the word appeasement being murmured somewhere, very gently, in the background against big smiles in the foreground. Whatever anyone says aloud about the Chinese government’s beliefs and behaviours, I can’t see it being anything more than back-covering. There are, after all, the Chinese people (millions of whom are still poor and subject to the mistreatment we are discussing) and the Olympic athletes to consider. All of whom are blameless and have little or no influence on the government.
Having said all that, there are set to be protests in London on Sunday when the torch is handed over. I will be very interested to see how that goes as various officials, including the Chinese ambassador, have opted to stay away. Any chance of points being made and noted?
Staying true to the athletics while sponsoring your brand is a noble gesture but still any advertising is Beijing will now be a gamble. The Olympics have always been infused with politics (see Munich, 1972) and this year will be no exception.
Extermination of a monk on TV with your logo in the background might be going a little too far. A simple blurb after the ad spot with some sort of politically correct disclaimer about having no involvement in anything but their own interest would help manufacturers or retailers.
Kind of a difficult question…. I sort of figure that China will be on its best behavior before and during the games but once all the internationals leave the country it’ll be back to the old way of doing things.
Also, you have to consider that this is a big deal in countries outside The United States. Canada is supposedly forcing their athletes to sign a contract which will prohibit them from making any political statements (albeit probably best for their safety). We all know that The U.S., Canada and The U.K. are all staunch defenders of basic Human Rights, so this very topic is being reviewed world-wide.
Personally, I think the Olympics are great but the choice of the host Country was poor. Surely there is somewhere else in the world that could have been a much better choice.
For brands that are already committed, there is nothing to do but contingency plan and take an active role in making sure that they address anything that makes it to crisis level head on. In Coca-Cola’s or McDonald’s shoes, I would take a stand. There are always groups that want to tie these events to politics, and when that happens it always diminishes the power and the meaning of the games. I would instead focus on the individuals–from around the world–who are coming to Beijing for what may very well be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to celebrate their skills and their dedication to their respective fields. And I would take the opportunity to remind people of the history and tradition–and inspirational purposes–of the Olympic Games. There are tragedies occurring around the world, and not to belittle the horror of them, but the Olympics are not the time or the place for that discussion. The Olympics are about the athletes and cultural exchange. At the very least, we create the opportunities for wider political dialog by taking a small time out to get to know each other better.
That’s not going to stop any activists, but if you’ve stayed true to the inspirational messages about the Olympics, rather than waffling about it, I think people will remember that.
To Nikki and Max’s points I have to add that we live in a visual world.
One incident with a sponsor’s logo as the backdrop could become as iconic an image as the shots of people standing up to the tanks in Tiananmen Square.
You can accentuate Olympic positives all you want–and perhaps justifiably so–but just one incident could visually indict your brand for the lifetime of the Internet.
It’s been impossible to totally separate politics from the Olympics since Jesse Owens won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. Remember Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ “Black Power” clenched fist salutes during the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City? It’s still an iconic photo.
Now imagine what would have happened if Smith and Carlos had decided to kill themselves in protest or if the Mexican army had run in to jerk them off the victor’s podium.
And,far on a more horrific note, remember what happened during the Munich games in 1972?
This isn’t a test of whether or not the Olympics are–or should be–political. That horse is long gone out of the barn. It’s a test of whether or not the Chinese are ready to live with the pressures of being a more open society. Those P.R. flacks Max is talking about might be better advised to look East to find their real fortunes.
I find it hard to believe that multi-billion dollar global companies are just coming to grips with the possibility that the Summer Olympics might generate more than a smidgen of controversy.
When the article says that premier sponsors “have already turned to PR specialists” for advice, it just sounds silly. The recent events in Tibet are simply the latest examples of how China is fraught with news angles that could potentially have negative implications for Olympic sponsors. Air pollution. Water pollution. Traffic gridlock. Tainted products made in China. Intense government monitoring of dissidents. Substantial Internet restrictions. Etc.
If any Olympic sponsors are just waking up to the need for anticipating issues–and obtaining resources to develop remedies that protect their brands–I would suggest that they are too late for the train. The top-notch marketers have been actively working with their internal and external public relations and government relations experts for quite some time to prepare for the China experience.
The political side of the Olympics is going to be front and center this year. With the games being in China, there is little room to leave politics out of the discussion. The Chinese government wanted the games to showcase the country (and its power) to the world, and if they thought that the games would not be a lightning rod for politics, they were naive. The same applies to the Olympic sponsors.
As the article points out, long-term sponsors that signed on for multiple Olympics are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Being associated with these games will subject the companies to political commentary. Pulling out of these games would have hurt the companies’ chances of doing business in China.
PR flacks will be working overtime for the sponsors. The companies should focus on the athletes and the idea that the Olympics transcend any one country’s politics, uniting the world for two weeks in a way that few events can do.
The danger is real and substantial.
Imagine what happens if we have a Tibetan monk or two go up in smoke on global television….
Or, imagine what happens if the Chinese crack down on protesters….
Or imagine what happens if one of those well-heeled American celebs attending the Olympics decides to become the poster child for protesting human rights abuses….
Now…imagine your brand logo in the background of all this fun.
Self-immolation goes better with Coke????
Enough said.
The 1936 Olympics had a major political positioning. Hitler wanted to show the world Aryan superiority. He was humiliated by Jesse Owens’ 4 gold medals. Hitler removed anti-semitic signs but rounded up Gypsies before the games. A substantial debate ensued in America over a possible boycott of the Olympic Games. Inspiring how history repeats itself. Seventy-two years later, only the names are different. Do you want your brand associated with the world’s largest open air prison? The world’s largest polluter? Are there no other places to advertise?
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
To sound a cynical note (just for a change), it strikes me that short memories will not necessarily link sponsors with any uncomfortable or horrific events. I’m not sure how many will hold sponsors responsible or blame them for doing their best to make money which is what they are all about.
Secondly, I strongly believe that China is well on its way to owning the world and those sponsors do not have either the inclination or temerity to oppose their buying/selling/lending/manufacturing power. I can hear the word appeasement being murmured somewhere, very gently, in the background against big smiles in the foreground. Whatever anyone says aloud about the Chinese government’s beliefs and behaviours, I can’t see it being anything more than back-covering. There are, after all, the Chinese people (millions of whom are still poor and subject to the mistreatment we are discussing) and the Olympic athletes to consider. All of whom are blameless and have little or no influence on the government.
Having said all that, there are set to be protests in London on Sunday when the torch is handed over. I will be very interested to see how that goes as various officials, including the Chinese ambassador, have opted to stay away. Any chance of points being made and noted?
Staying true to the athletics while sponsoring your brand is a noble gesture but still any advertising is Beijing will now be a gamble. The Olympics have always been infused with politics (see Munich, 1972) and this year will be no exception.
Extermination of a monk on TV with your logo in the background might be going a little too far. A simple blurb after the ad spot with some sort of politically correct disclaimer about having no involvement in anything but their own interest would help manufacturers or retailers.
Kind of a difficult question…. I sort of figure that China will be on its best behavior before and during the games but once all the internationals leave the country it’ll be back to the old way of doing things.
Also, you have to consider that this is a big deal in countries outside The United States. Canada is supposedly forcing their athletes to sign a contract which will prohibit them from making any political statements (albeit probably best for their safety). We all know that The U.S., Canada and The U.K. are all staunch defenders of basic Human Rights, so this very topic is being reviewed world-wide.
Personally, I think the Olympics are great but the choice of the host Country was poor. Surely there is somewhere else in the world that could have been a much better choice.
For brands that are already committed, there is nothing to do but contingency plan and take an active role in making sure that they address anything that makes it to crisis level head on. In Coca-Cola’s or McDonald’s shoes, I would take a stand. There are always groups that want to tie these events to politics, and when that happens it always diminishes the power and the meaning of the games. I would instead focus on the individuals–from around the world–who are coming to Beijing for what may very well be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to celebrate their skills and their dedication to their respective fields. And I would take the opportunity to remind people of the history and tradition–and inspirational purposes–of the Olympic Games. There are tragedies occurring around the world, and not to belittle the horror of them, but the Olympics are not the time or the place for that discussion. The Olympics are about the athletes and cultural exchange. At the very least, we create the opportunities for wider political dialog by taking a small time out to get to know each other better.
That’s not going to stop any activists, but if you’ve stayed true to the inspirational messages about the Olympics, rather than waffling about it, I think people will remember that.
To Nikki and Max’s points I have to add that we live in a visual world.
One incident with a sponsor’s logo as the backdrop could become as iconic an image as the shots of people standing up to the tanks in Tiananmen Square.
You can accentuate Olympic positives all you want–and perhaps justifiably so–but just one incident could visually indict your brand for the lifetime of the Internet.
It’s been impossible to totally separate politics from the Olympics since Jesse Owens won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. Remember Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ “Black Power” clenched fist salutes during the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City? It’s still an iconic photo.
Now imagine what would have happened if Smith and Carlos had decided to kill themselves in protest or if the Mexican army had run in to jerk them off the victor’s podium.
And,far on a more horrific note, remember what happened during the Munich games in 1972?
This isn’t a test of whether or not the Olympics are–or should be–political. That horse is long gone out of the barn. It’s a test of whether or not the Chinese are ready to live with the pressures of being a more open society. Those P.R. flacks Max is talking about might be better advised to look East to find their real fortunes.
I find it hard to believe that multi-billion dollar global companies are just coming to grips with the possibility that the Summer Olympics might generate more than a smidgen of controversy.
When the article says that premier sponsors “have already turned to PR specialists” for advice, it just sounds silly. The recent events in Tibet are simply the latest examples of how China is fraught with news angles that could potentially have negative implications for Olympic sponsors. Air pollution. Water pollution. Traffic gridlock. Tainted products made in China. Intense government monitoring of dissidents. Substantial Internet restrictions. Etc.
If any Olympic sponsors are just waking up to the need for anticipating issues–and obtaining resources to develop remedies that protect their brands–I would suggest that they are too late for the train. The top-notch marketers have been actively working with their internal and external public relations and government relations experts for quite some time to prepare for the China experience.
The political side of the Olympics is going to be front and center this year. With the games being in China, there is little room to leave politics out of the discussion. The Chinese government wanted the games to showcase the country (and its power) to the world, and if they thought that the games would not be a lightning rod for politics, they were naive. The same applies to the Olympic sponsors.
As the article points out, long-term sponsors that signed on for multiple Olympics are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Being associated with these games will subject the companies to political commentary. Pulling out of these games would have hurt the companies’ chances of doing business in China.
PR flacks will be working overtime for the sponsors. The companies should focus on the athletes and the idea that the Olympics transcend any one country’s politics, uniting the world for two weeks in a way that few events can do.
The danger is real and substantial.
Imagine what happens if we have a Tibetan monk or two go up in smoke on global television….
Or, imagine what happens if the Chinese crack down on protesters….
Or imagine what happens if one of those well-heeled American celebs attending the Olympics decides to become the poster child for protesting human rights abuses….
Now…imagine your brand logo in the background of all this fun.
Self-immolation goes better with Coke????
Enough said.
The 1936 Olympics had a major political positioning. Hitler wanted to show the world Aryan superiority. He was humiliated by Jesse Owens’ 4 gold medals. Hitler removed anti-semitic signs but rounded up Gypsies before the games. A substantial debate ensued in America over a possible boycott of the Olympic Games. Inspiring how history repeats itself. Seventy-two years later, only the names are different. Do you want your brand associated with the world’s largest open air prison? The world’s largest polluter? Are there no other places to advertise?