Connecting You with the Latest Marketing Tips and Trends.
When the 2012 Summer Olympics kick off next week in London, official sponsors ranging from Adidas to McDonald’s to UPS will compete for a different kind of gold. Olympic sponsors pay more than $1 billion apiece for brand exposure, and it’s predicted 4 billion viewers will tune into this year’s opening ceremonies. Yet, leading up to next Friday’s festivities, it’s brands without official sponsorships that are “meddling” first. Earlier this year, Hanson Dodge Creative in Milwaukie spent over $11,000 for the rights to…an athlete’s shoulder. Runner Nick Symmonds has sported the agency’s Twitter handle, in the form of a temporary tattoo, on his left shoulder throughout the 2012 track and field season. Because of Olympic regulations regarding sponsorships, Symmonds will be forced to cover the tattoo when he races in London, but some argue that could be just as – if not more – effective. Fast-food chain Subway is making waves with an unofficial campaign featuring four British athletes who encourage consumers to “Train hard. Eat Fresh.” And UPS competitor FedEx has announced it will provide grants to some 25 future Olympians and Paralympians, who will be featured in an ad campaign for the brand. Forget official sponsorships; the Olympics, it seems, are fair game.
Maybe I’m just blogging out loud, but it seems like any and all brands can — and should — compete for Olympic gold. Whether it’s a guerrilla campaign or something hyper-local, consumers the world over respond to the spirit of the Games.
Which prompts the question: Do you think Olympic tie-ins help brands shine? Do guerrilla-marketing campaigns like those mentioned above help “unofficial” brands strike Olympic gold? In your mind, is a certain brand leading the competition?
Please leave a comment in the section below, or join the conversation on the Vertical Marketing Network Facebook page.