Presumably, sports fans in ancient Greece had seen little in the way of large-scale athletic extravaganzas. But given its association with shady politics, corruption, archaic sports and a logo that triggers epilepsy - does the Olympics need to rethink its branding?
Statistics suggest that the jury is still out. While the Athens Games in 2004 smashed all TV viewing estimates, it may also have set new standards for the sheer number of glaringly empty seats.
Clearly, the Olympics today relies on its global TV audience to build appeal among its roster of blue-chip global sponsors. But even the TV figures may be misleading. While the Athens Games scored well, analysts note that the Olympics has not been successful in attracting young viewers.
One of the key factors cited for this trend is the Olympics’ inability to attract younger viewers. Not only do young people watch less TV but, often, many of the Olympics events veer into niche territory - compared to the all-encompassing appeal of the football World Cup. Meanwhile, the Olympics also grapples with a fundamental brand problem - defining exactly what it stands for.
In 776 BC, this was fairly straightforward. But today, the Olympic Movement’s official goal ‘to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit’, does not sit too well after more than 20 years of doping scandals.
Add in the pervasive influence of sponsors and broadcast networks - whose billions of dollars bankroll the Games - and it becomes easy to understand why the Olympics has lost sight of its original mission.
Perhaps, however, there really is a passionate market for archery, equestrian and the modern pentathlon - and the Olympics simply needs to market its product better. Until then, however, it could do considerably worse than rethinking its entire brand platform, or risk losing even more young viewers.
Fact Box
The Beijing Olympics are hoping to attract four billion TV viewers, one billion more than that of the 2004 Athens Olympics.
The Summer Olympics brand is valued at US$176 million by Forbes, behind the Super Bowl ($379 million).
The London 2012 logo ignited widespread controversy, including claims that it triggers epilepsy.
Ed Hula, editor and founder, Around the Rings
While there are few more recognisable symbols or better-known sports events, the Olympics is not the only tent-pole in the circus of competition for eyeballs and consumer influence.
It’s a sophisticated age of marketing and promotion; other sports and events are skillfully exploiting their branding and positioning to capture what the Olympics once could win with prestige.
Olympic marketers are trying to come to grips with the change affecting their product by pursuing new media strategies. Delivering the Games via alternative platforms such as mobile phones is a reality, but needs more development.
Broadband coverage would also seem to be a must for survival and exploiting interactive features of digital broadcasting would add a ‘wow’ factor. Finally, sporting interests of Olympics consumers must be addressed.
Will people watching the Olympics in 2020 be drawn by the same sports that are featured in the Beijing Olympics? Classic but archaic expressions of Olympic sport may please a dying breed of traditionalists, but are likely to be ignored by consumers whom marketers hope to lure with Olympic branding.
The Olympics need to change with the times, but movement is slow.
Edwin Yeo, GM, Strategic Public Relations Singapore
Already tarnished with persistent allegations of corruption within the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the 2008 Beijing Olympics came under more attack when detractors dragged out China’s human rights track record and the country’s role in the genocide in Darfur.
But there are messages the IOC can send out if it one day decides to stop taking the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to dealing with its brand health. The most urgent one is this - that sports is above politics.
It is something that even detractors will find hard to argue with. On the Olympic Movement website, there is already a statement proclaiming ‘The Games have always brought people together in peace to respect universal moral principles’.
The IOC can add a statement along the lines that it is happy to bring that spirit to China without jumping into the issues at hand. It reinforces the Olympic spirit and implies that the IOC is not endorsing China’s actions, but rather, it is a beacon of light for the country.
Much more will have to be done in terms of cleaning up the image of the IOC, and the fact that steps have been taken to ensure more checks within the IOC needs to be publicly highlighted.
