This post contains an excerpt from an assigned essay on a cross cultural comparison between the '88 Seoul and '12 London Olympic games.
The acceptance of Dow Chemical and British Petroleum as sponsors has caused controversy in the international news cycle. Dow owns Union Carbide, a Bhopal India chemical plant that exploded in 1984 and killed 20,000 people. Critics have blasted LOCOG and the IOC for allowing Dow Chemical and BP to sponsor the London Olympics, the most sustainable Olympics yet. LOCOG has brought up the important fact that Dow acquired the Union Carbide a full 17 years after the devastating explosion. Dow Chemical has received more public outrage as it is a partner in the worldwide TOP sponsorship program. British Petroleum owned the lease on an offshore drilling platform named Deepwater Horizon. On April 20, 2010, the drill exploded and anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 barrels per day gushed into the Gulf of Mexico for three months. The U.S. government declared that BP is the responsible party for the largest accidental oceanic oil spill in history. BP is an official partner of the London games and other national Olympic committee’s but suffered the larger credential ruining, PR nightmare. These two companies are using the sponsorship strategy of the sports business field within marketing. The Olympic brand is one of the most powerful and socially positive brands in the world. The two companies are using sponsorship strategy to affect positive feelings about their brand through marketing partnership with the Olympics. Both brands stand to benefit from simple awareness and affect transfer. The brains cognitive process starts with recognizing a brand, when exposed to either BP or Dow’s brand with the Olympic rings, “that exposure to an object has been found to lead positive affect toward the brand” (Pracejus, 22). Further, the length of the Olympics will allow for enormously high levels of affect transfer as “positive feelings toward an event transfer the sponsoring brand through the sponsorship association” (Pracejus, 22). The sheer amount of televised coverage in markets all over the world provide high levels of return for these sponsorships, given the assets in the contracts include stadium or court signage.
The acceptance of Dow Chemical and British Petroleum as sponsors has caused controversy in the international news cycle. Dow owns Union Carbide, a Bhopal India chemical plant that exploded in 1984 and killed 20,000 people. Critics have blasted LOCOG and the IOC for allowing Dow Chemical and BP to sponsor the London Olympics, the most sustainable Olympics yet. LOCOG has brought up the important fact that Dow acquired the Union Carbide a full 17 years after the devastating explosion. Dow Chemical has received more public outrage as it is a partner in the worldwide TOP sponsorship program. British Petroleum owned the lease on an offshore drilling platform named Deepwater Horizon. On April 20, 2010, the drill exploded and anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 barrels per day gushed into the Gulf of Mexico for three months. The U.S. government declared that BP is the responsible party for the largest accidental oceanic oil spill in history. BP is an official partner of the London games and other national Olympic committee’s but suffered the larger credential ruining, PR nightmare. These two companies are using the sponsorship strategy of the sports business field within marketing. The Olympic brand is one of the most powerful and socially positive brands in the world. The two companies are using sponsorship strategy to affect positive feelings about their brand through marketing partnership with the Olympics. Both brands stand to benefit from simple awareness and affect transfer. The brains cognitive process starts with recognizing a brand, when exposed to either BP or Dow’s brand with the Olympic rings, “that exposure to an object has been found to lead positive affect toward the brand” (Pracejus, 22). Further, the length of the Olympics will allow for enormously high levels of affect transfer as “positive feelings toward an event transfer the sponsoring brand through the sponsorship association” (Pracejus, 22). The sheer amount of televised coverage in markets all over the world provide high levels of return for these sponsorships, given the assets in the contracts include stadium or court signage.
RSS Feed