Arnold on ethical marketing

CHRIS ARNOLD

Has the Olympics, once politically neutral, become the new battleground of ethics? Can those brands sponsoring it do anything to avoid serious damage to their brand reputations as pressure groups in the States are threatening them with mass public boycotts. 

The Olympics has always been seen as a non political event. A coming together of nations in friendly sport and peace. Nice dream, but far from today’s reality.

It is only recently that it has become commercial, selling every aspect of itself to corporate sponsor, many who care little for sport or have little relevance to it. But for many brands, the pay off for what is a massive sponsorship fee is positive publicity and public good will.

China for one was hoping that the Olympics would revitalise it’s brand image but if anything it stands to lose out as story after story comes out, from the cover up of dead workers to it’s human rights violations, the Dalai Lama and Darfur. For China and the game’s sponsors it’s turning into a PR disaster and International PR specialist Hill & Knowlton have their work cut out, ironically their slogan is ‘What does success look like?’ We and China are waiting to see.

The last Olympics wasn’t  a great experience for brands – many received a lot of criticism because they used their muscle to insist that the sports men and women could not drink a rival soft drink, that all payments had to go via one credit card company. Many thought this was a step too far, and there was a backlash against the sponsor with accusations of bullying.  At the time my daughter banned all products in our house by a well know drinks brand and cut up one of my credit cards! She was not alone, many of her school friends were taking similar actions. “You can have you advertising but you can’t have the souls of the sports men and women,” was one comment at the time from an angry coach. With a lot of press and public criticism you may wonder if sponsoring the Olympics did more harm than good for some of the brands in 2004.

This time the 2008 Beijing Olympics is dogged by one key issue, China and their relationship with Darfur. Charities, NGOs, religious groups and pressure groups, especially in the US, are using the Olympics for political reasons, though they call it a cause.

Hollywood stars have been leading an international campaign for a while, linking China to violence in the Darfur region of Sudan. They highlight that money and weapons from Beijing have helped fuel a conflict which has claimed over 200,000 lives and forced millions to leave their homes. China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil and has blocked punitive moves by the UN security council. (Though it should be noted than many other countries, including those in the West, don’t have clean hands either.)

Although the protesters have been grabbing headlines, it’s only when Spielberg quit in protest as artistic director of the games did it go ballistic. (Less well known is that Spielberg has actually donated about $1m to aid groups working in Darfur.) Many believe that he was forced to resign by Hollywood after a lot of criticism of hypocrisy, especially from Mia Farrow. How long before Quincy Jones and Ang Lee quit too?

Sponsors, many who may have wished they hadn’t now, include McDonalds, Kodak, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Omega, Samsung, Visa, VW, Johnson & Johnson, GE, Adidas, Panasonic, and many others. Each are spending millions and putting their brand reputations on the line, and the way things are looking there could be more losers than winners.

Not surprisingly, with many American brands sponsoring the Olympics, these pressure groups have applied pressure to them, leaving an awkward situation. While some have commented, McDonalds and J&J have responded with an intelligent response, others have tried to avoid the issue through silence. Big mistake. Silence in the eyes and ears of the press and public is guilt at worse, indifference at best. In this political game you are either “with us or against us”, to quote Bush after 9/11.

One organisation, Dream for Darfur, has managed to meet up with 19 sponsors so far but has so far been unimpressed by their responses. More dramatically, Human Rights Watch has called on corporate sponsors to pull out, while Amnesty International UK, are being less aggressive and asking people to question China about it’s history of human rights violations.

Groups have warned brands that if their do nothing they face public demonstrations at their offices, and mass boycotts, including their TV ads through a campaign called ‘Turn Off For Darfur’.

Many of us may wonder if spending so much money on these events is really good marketing anyway? Are you really influenced by it? With little relevance, does the name of a large world bank projected in 20 foot high letters make you want to switch? I doubt it. But for many brands it’s all about corporate ego. And corporate ego likes to spend big time.

Although most people sympathise with the problems of Darfur many in the media are also critical of how the Olympics have been hijacked. It not only spoils the games but will also means that those thinking about sponsoring the 2012 and 2016 Olympics may be asking if they should save their money or even better, give it direct to charity as they would probably win them more supporters.