The Olympic Games present billions of dollars worth of marketing opportunities, but the controversies over this year’s host, China, have the potential to make some advertisers wonder if the risk is worth the reward.
So far, however, there have been few, if any, high-profile companies pulling out of their Olympic commitments in protest over China’s stands on human rights, Tibet, or other issues spotlighted by groups such as Amnesty International. In fact, just the opposite occurred recently when a group of heavy hitters including Johnson & Johnson, GE, and Coca-Cola, all with massive investments in China, condemned the anti-China campaign conducted by the group Dreams for Darfur.
John Quelch, a Harvard Business School marketing professor, sees some other trends in how companies are playing the Olympics, including a “two-faced” approach where firms market aggressively inside China while keeping their Beijing ties quiet in advertising elsewhere around the globe. (In an earlier post, Quelch argued China itself should be using the Olympics to market itself to the rest of the world.)
What’s your take? Should advertisers and even Olympic sponsors use their clout to send a message to Beijing? Might such a tactic benefit the company taking the lead? Or are the Olympic Games themselves a force for change and best be kept separate from the political winds?
Related reading: Winners and Losers in the 2006 Olympics
