With the Olympics finally here, I was interested in those brands that paid to be affiliated officially with the event.
The big brands have the cash to participate – but having observed who does what in recent weeks and months leading up to the event, I wonder if they are playing their cards right.
When visa insisted tickets could only be purchased with their cards, they lost a lot of respect from me simply because a brand that limits options is in my mind a brand that reflects an attitude of wanting to gain rather than wanting to give and that doesn’t support individualism and consumer choice.
And why everyone has to eat Mac Donald’s is just another example of selective monopolism that is so very much against the idea of the Olympics, it makes me somewhat doubt their brand strategy in this respect. I understand they give a lot of money to be sponsors and allow for better games for all of us – I just wished someone tried a fresh approach to the inevitable marketing frenzy of the event that ensues.
In comparison, it seems rather harmless that Panasonic puts his Olympic stamp on products designed to capture the moment. (A bit like crunchy bars as the snack for audiences…)
I would have liked to see a truly refreshing brand action in connection with the Olympics that was more than handing out micro bottles of coke on the torch route – at least with crunchy bars you got the full size! ;-)
It just shows that most brands are motivated by profits and whilst there is nothing wrong with that, in connection with events such as the Olympics makes their benevolent activities seem somewhat contrived.