Dishonesty, Disease & Doping: Disillusionment With Rio Olympics Worries Sponsors

By Emma Hope
Account Executive

The run-up to the Rio Olympics has been troubled to say the least: With reports of endemic corruption within the Brazilian government; the very serious threat of the Zika virus prevalent throughout the country; and a Russian doping scandal of unprecedented scale. These issues, to name but a few, have been to blame for the sluggish ticket sakes leaving 1.3 million tickets unsold in the week of the opening ceremony. Viewing figures worldwide are likely to be affected also, with 57% of those surveyed in a recent BBC poll claiming that the doping scandal will have a negative effect on the level of attention they will pay to the Games.

The circumstances surrounding the Brazil Olympics raise serious questions about the benefits brands derive from becoming official sponsors of the games. Traditionally, partnering with high-profile events was viewed as an opportunity to increase brand visibility, and of benefit to corporate and social value. However, for the coming olympics in particular, brands must be aware of negative associations. By becoming a partner of this Olympic games, a brand is partnering itself with the associated corruption and scandal in the eyes of the consumer. Despite this, brands may be looking to the past to inform their sponsorship decisions. There is no evidence, for example, that the key sponsors of Fifa suffered any public negativity or loss of brand value following the widely publicised Fifa corruption scandal last year.

Many brands will be looking to distance themselves from the scandal and corruption of the institutions involved, and focus on individual sponsorships of athletes. These athlete endorsements, how many Olympians make a living, present brands with a unique opportunity to access a young and engaged audience. However, the risk of placing faith in the actions of one individual is great. Maria Sharapova, who is set to miss the Rio olympics following a ban for failing a drugs test, has been dropped by a number of key sponsors. Despite this, racket manufacturer Head remained staunch in their support of the tennis star. This has left them facing heavy criticism from anti-doping campaigners, ranging from being described as irresponsible and cynical, to being denounced as a dangerous example to young athletes.

Aside from the corruption, there is much debate on the value of sponsoring sporting events at all, contentious or not.  For the 2012 London games, Adidas spent an estimated £100 million to be official partners, whilst Nike opted for a cheaper, third tier sponsorship package. However, in the run up to the opening ceremony, a vast 90% of Twitter users surveyed believed that Nike were an official partner. Nike’s campaign resonated on an emotional level with consumers far more, gaining them twice as many Facebook fans as Adidas and 7,000 more tweets using their official hashtag. This was described by many as ambush marketing, and may be more prevalent during the Rio olympics than any other previous games. This is due to changes to the 40th rule, which previously stipulated that non-sponsors were forbidden from featuring or mentioning athletes or the olympics in any forms of advertising, including social media. Whilst regulations are still in place, the rules have now been relaxed so that brands can now feature athletes in their advertisements. This could prove to be damaging for official partners and sponsors, who may struggle to assert themselves as distinct among an swathe of unofficial related marketing.

Despite the issues surrounding Olympic sponsorship, it is unlikely that any major brands will cease their association. As the games begin, focus will inevitably shift away from criticisms, and focus on the athletes involved. For brands, this human element is where the value lies.