LONG-STANDING Olympic sponsors have learned that their association brings with it risks as well as benefits. After London 2012, those lessons will extend to Paralympic sponsors, some of whose experiences of highs and lows match those of the athletes.
The very nature of Olympic and Paralympic sponsorship is that they are big, high-profile deals, done often years ahead of the events and which peak into a perfect storm of frenetic activity and media attention.
This can work in sponsoring brands’ favour but equally there is the possibility that “events” risk derailing years of careful planning. In this context it is interesting to compare the fortunes of UK supermarket Sainsbury’s and international outsourcing firm Atos.
When it came to the supermarket and grocery category, LOCOG had a problem. Coca-Cola’s most recent TOP sponsorship deal with the IOC blocked out the category for fear it would be sold to a competing brand.
Supermarket own-brand products represent, after all, some of the most powerful competition that branded consumer products face.
LOCOG’s solution was to persuade Sainsbury’s that it should become the first exclusive Paralympic partner. Whatever anyone has reported in 2012, back in 20XX, this was no easy sell. Head of Sponsorship, Jat Sahota admitted as much when he told the recent IPC Marketing Summit this week that bridging the gap between the numbers and a solid business case required an “act of faith”.
Sainsbury’s is reported to have paid £20m in a deal which was hailed by the IPC at the time as the largest ever Paralympic sponsorship. The deal was a triumph for LOCOG but a big bet for the supermarket. With the benefit of hindsight however, it looks like the most natural thing in the world.
Sainsbury’s has activated through its physical assets across the UK and benefited hugely from the warm glow of media and public attention. The result will no doubt be evaluated in the coming months but, at first sight, it would seem to have used the Paralympics very effectively to build on the trust element of its brand proposition.
Atos by contrast, has had a difficult Paralympics. Its Olympic sponsorship, like its business, was focused on its public sector and corporate clients and, as such, operated below the media’s radar. The Olympic and Paralympic Games make complete sense to a company that has built its business in recent years with help in part from the profile they bring.
In the build up to the London Olympics, the harshest media glare was reserved for BP, McDonald’s and Dow. But, come the Paralympics, Atos’s contract with the UK government to evaluate the fitness for work for ill and disabled people jarred horribly and led to grassroots protests picked up extensively by the media.
Atos was in a completely no-win situation despite, and probably because of its efficient delivery of its contracts. It could not defend itself against charges of making the lives of disabled people worse without pointing the finger back at its client; the policy maker. And an unpopular government that is still only part way through a policy of cuts in its welfare bill was never likely to stand up during the Games and take the heat.
Of course, none of this would really resonate if the Paralympics were not an enormous commercial sports property and one that is growing in importance.
This was acknowledged by Sainsbury’s Sahota who said that organisations that are commercially involved with the Paralympics should expect to have their business practices scrutinised. It was no accident that P&G, another leading sponsoring brand, emphasised its “growth with a purpose” strategy.
Post Games, there will be a number of points that future sponsors of the will learn from. The Paralympics clearly is a property that can capture the attention of the public in a different but no less powerful way from the Olympics.
Commercial partners can build an association with elite sport, human battle against adversity and magic moments of triumph and sheer unfettered joy. It will be interesting to see sponsorship premiums rise for Paralympic partners in Rio and beyond.
But, the lesson from Atos is that sponsors’ businesses will also be put under the microscope. Every corporation has its detractors but Paralympic sponsors need to ensure they have their defences well prepared and crucially that they have a chance to respond and reply. Atos will, no doubt continue to prosper as a business and redouble their efforts around Rio 2016. But, the hard lessons of London 2012 will stay with them and be a salutary warning for all future Paralympic sponsors.
By Phil Savage
Follow Phil on Twitter: @PhilSBG