Public Relations & Social Marketing Insight

A few weeks ago, amid the pollution- and Zika-filled media run-up to Rio, a press release issued by the Olympic organizing committee for PyeongChang, Korea (where the 2018 Winter Olympics will take place) received little notice. The single-page communiqué carried news about a white striped tiger named Soohorang. Rendered with computer graphics, the creature wore a cheesy grin and posed like a track star. Soohorang, you see, had just been chosen as the next official Olympics mascot.

The practice of choosing a creature to represent each Olympics is now in its 44th year. It’s a job that falls to the host city’s organizing committee, which frequently relies on marketing research to create the mascot and public surveys to choose one, with final approval resting with the International Olympic Committee. While some mascots are human (children, usually), most have been animals (bears, raccoons, owls, etc.) And with the advent of CGI, several mascots have fallen into what’s generously termed the fantasy-creature category.

But whatever the breed of the mascot, most have shared one thing in common: They’re a little—and sometimes very—freaky. ("Loony," to quote Time magazine, or "downright scary" in the appraisal of ESPN.)

But why?...

When the 2016 Olympics kick off on Friday, many advertisers will be crossing their fingers that their Olympics sponsorship will pay off. Their hopes will be misplaced if they haven’t executed on their sponsorship with the right advertising. Without spots that are relevant and compelling to their target customers, Olympics advertisers are wasting their sponsorship dollars.

Companies can sign up for different levels of sponsorship, ranging from Worldwide Olympic Partner to Official Supplier. Each comes with different terms dictating how Olympics-related logos, names, images, etc. can be used in advertising, on uniforms, in apps, and now even in Tweets. The Olympic Partners (TOP) program, the highest level of Olympic sponsorship, can cost over $200 million these days. Spending that kind of money, advertisers are right to expect a return. But results show that hefty sponsorship dollars don’t automatically translate to a successful campaign.

A comparison of Adidas’s and Nike’s campaigns for the 2012 London Olympics illustrates this point. Adidas spent $127 million to $156 million to be the “Official Sportswear Partner of the London 2012 Olympic Games and the London 2012 Paralympic Games.” Nike paid considerably less for a “tier-three” sponsorship which allowed it to outfit most Brazilian national teams for the 2012 London and 2016 Rio Games. Yet, in a move that some label as ambush marketing, Nike shot commercials in places around the world named London and timed the campaign launch to coincide with the Games opening ceremony....

Adidas, Auto Trader, Gatorade, and Under Armour, among others, are unofficial sponsors of the 2016 Rio Olympics. All have found ways to capitalize on ads connected to this summer's games, but some confusion has led to a bit of controversy. More than one-third of survey participants in a global study by Toluna incorrectly identified Adidas as a sponsor of the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

"Brands that sponsor big name athletes like Michael Phelps may be able to gain more exposure for less cost than by becoming an official Olympics sponsor," said Mark Simon, managing director of North America at Toluna. "Ultimately, the IOC will need to consider what brings them more value--allowing non-sponsors to generate broader exposure for the games through their athlete partnerships, or maintaining control over the athletes’ marketing influence by restricting use of the Olympics brand."...