Do Sochi Problems Spell Trouble for Winter Olympics Sponsors?

The week leading up to this year's Winter Olympics might be the most controversial in history. The first wave of reporters is now in Sochi, and complaints range from undrinkable water to wandering packs of wild dogs. Public sentiment has gotten so bad, the term "#SochiProblems" has been trending on Twitter. 

In addition to being the most expensive Olympics ever, corporate sponsors have millions of dollars invested. Does the negative publicity hurt?

The benefits of sponsorship
According to IEG Consulting, the Olympics' 10 Tier One partners -- which include Coca-Cola  (NYSE: KO  ) , McDonald's (NYSE: MCD  ) , and Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG  )  -- dole out an average of almost $20 million annually to be a part of the Games. Most contracts last at least a decade, and some are as long as 20 years.

Source: Sponsorship.com, IEG Consulting.

As you'd guess, the benefits of sponsoring a global event that can reach over a billion viewers are significant. Research from Havas Sports & Entertainment suggests that in the London 2012 Olympics, consumers were 50% more likely to associate a sponsor with words like "inspiring" and "trustworthy" than before, and those polled were 25% more likely to think of a partnering brand as "admired" or "world-class."

Procter & Gamble is one of the few to place a dollar value on this benefit. The consumer goods company says sales in Olympic quarters are close to $100 million above normal levels -- a profit margin of about 150%, assuming it spends $20 million a year. 

But that's not the entire picture.

The long-term outlook
I spoke with Jim Andrews, a senior VP at IEG (whose consulting clients include P&G and Samsung) about how sponsors are tackling this year's Games. He stressed that the companies are focused on the long-term benefits of partnering with the event, despite the potential negative press associated with Sochi, and that "as a sponsor, they know the risks and rewards that go into being part of the Olympic family." 

For most, the reward outweighs the risk because of the benefits described above. Coca-Cola, for example, has been involved since 1928 and plans to remain a sponsor until at least 2020, while P&G is in the middle of a 10-year deal that stretches through next decade.

Depending on the year, however, there will be Olympic destinations that aren't ideal. For every London or Rome, there's bound to be a Sochi every few cycles. As Andrews explained to me, "if they had been making the choice, I'm not sure any of the sponsors would've chosen Sochi, but it's not up to them, it's up to the IOC. They have to live with the decisions made for them."

Perhaps this is why early data from the consulting firm suggests Olympic partners are doing less promotion than usual. 

Image via Stefan Krasowski, Flickr.

Andrews says IEG isn't "seeing the level of activity [it] normally sees around other Games," and with such a long time horizon in play for most, it's reasonable that a company like Coca-Cola or P&G could simply cut back on marketing during years of elevated controversy.   

The risks that remain
With that being said, it's impossible to account for all of the potential problems that could occur during an Olympics. In Sochi, for example, most companies likely understood that an area facing over $50 billion in development costs could face problems. As The Washington Post reported this week, infrastructure shortcomings include everything from unfinished construction to uncovered sewer entrances.

More seriously, the U.S. State Department has already issued a travel alert for Sochi, and a recent CNN poll indicates nearly 60% of Americans "think a terrorist attack on the Games is likely." As of late January, 30% of tickets remained unsold.

From a sponsorship standpoint, Bryan Cave's Steve Smith told me that most partners "traveled to Sochi in advance ... so they knew there were issues," but pointed out, "you never really know just how difficult things are until you actually get there." 

Smith, who has advised Olympic sponsorships in the past, also said there isn't a "rule of thumb" to quantify just how badly a brand can be affected by negative press at the Games, but some sponsors could be protected by their contracts:

Most likely, a sponsor will have some sort of remedy in the agreement for certain breaches of the agreement or failure of Sochi to deliver on certain promises. However, it's very hard to anticipate every contingency, so I suspect there will be some battles over what relief a sponsor should receive because of what happens in Russia.

Many times, sponsors entertain clients at events like the Olympics, so it's possible that a poor transportation or lodging experience could lead to monetary compensation. 

The future
As of now, the sponsors I've talked to say their marketing plans haven't been changed by Sochi's negative press, and it makes sense. All budgets were likely finalized months before the Games, and as IEG reveals, they're spending less than usual on marketing. 

The Olympics' biggest partners shell out $20 million a year, and like Coca-Cola or P&G, they're in it for the long haul, Sochi issues be damned. Because sponsorship generally leads to improved perceptions among consumers, this viewpoint is understandable, and assuming sponsors planned ahead, most probably aren't losing sleep over "#SochiProblems." 

But it's likely they're looking forward to the discussion turning from Sochi's lack of preparedness, unsafe venues, terrorism threats, and packs of roving stray dogs to the athletic achievement and grandeur of the Games.

The next step for you
Want to figure out how to profit on business analysis like this? The key is to learn how to turn business insights into portfolio gold by taking your first steps as an investor. Those who wait on the sidelines are missing out on huge gains and putting their financial futures in jeopardy. In our brand-new special report, "Your Essential Guide to Start Investing Today," The Motley Fool's personal finance experts show you what you need to get started, and even give you access to some stocks to buy first. Click here to get your copy today -- it's absolutely free.


Read/Post Comments (6) | Recommend This Article (13)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 06, 2014, at 5:17 PM, twoshoes4u wrote:

    This could be the most viewed Winter Olympics ever. We the People are totally jaded and will absolutely groove on the yellow water and dog packs. The media will not fail us, especially since it's in Russia.

  • Report this Comment On February 06, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Dises1970 wrote:

    hi

  • Report this Comment On February 06, 2014, at 5:55 PM, luxonytim wrote:

    A lot of these "problems" would probably go away if Putin would simply allow the establishment of a western central bank. Same with Syria, Iran, etc...

  • Report this Comment On February 06, 2014, at 6:15 PM, cmalek wrote:

    "Do Sochi Problems Spell Trouble for Winter Olympics Sponsors?"

    Only in the minds of people like you. The sponsors are going to profit from the Olympics no matter what. Russia will lose billions of dollars but, in Putin's eyes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Any Russian that wins a gold medal will be declared a Hero of Mother Russia.

  • Report this Comment On February 06, 2014, at 11:02 PM, Minerva wrote:

    Here is more information on the controversy of holding the Olympics in a neo-fascist state like Russia.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMTbFSJ_Tr4&feature=youtu...

    Viewer discretion advised.

  • Report this Comment On February 07, 2014, at 8:28 AM, pondee619 wrote:

    "Procter & Gamble is one of the few to place a dollar value on this benefit. The consumer goods company says sales in Olympic quarters are close to $100 million above normal levels..."

    I would have thought, hoped, that the benefits of sponsoning the olympics would be more long lasting than just the quarter in which they are held. Now $100 million on $20 million spent does seem like a good deal. BUT,

    "Procter & Gamble dole(s) out an average of almost $20 million annually to be a part of the Games..."

    ANNUALLY on the games which occur every other year, alternating summer and winter. $100 million on $40 million spent aint too shabby either, but shouldn't the effect be more long term than just the quarter in which they are held?

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2825801, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/18/2014 7:16:42 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement