Explain The Likelihood Of Success For The Uk's Marketing Of The 2012 Olympics

Milly Cleal
Marketing w/ Advertising Management
Student Number: Q09752498

“From an economic perspective, explain the likelihood of success for the UK’s marketing of the 2012 Olympics.”

The British Government has repeatedly stressed the importance of the Olympic Games for the British economy that is currently experiencing its worst downturn in over 50 years. Although they have stated that London and the surrounding areas are predicted to pick up the most wealth during and following the 3 weeks of games. With the event costing in the region of 9.2bn in order to host and create venues, many have been sceptical over it; will it really be beneficial to the Country and its financial crisis? In order to bring in the expected revenue and create the business and job opportunity's the Government has promised the Games have had to have a marketing and advertising plan the Government considers “full proof”.

They started this campaign by using as many house hold names for sponsors as they possibly could, the list is endless consisting of BA Airlines, McDonalds, Fairy Liquid, Coca Cola and Visa. Such companies have branded the Olympics logo over as many products as they possibly can, offering deals to help out 3rd world countries with the extra
revenue produced and Innocent Smoothies have claimed to be the “Olympians Breakfast” due to their 5 a day ingredients and obvious healthy nature.
The BBC was given full coverage of the Games in order for them to be “accessible for everyone” and this follows suit in the Governments push for these Games producing a “healthier more active Britain.”

This is all goes hand in hand with the Olympics Marketing programme which states “The main objective of the Olympic marketing programme is to ensure the independent financial stability of the Olympic movement.” It was tasked with ensuring the British public knew that the Olympics were going to be self sufficient, that despite the outrageous original cost, it would be a positive move for Britain, British Economy and the Olympic Games as a whole.
By involving such big sponsors, licensing the coverage to the BBC, creating venues that would become facilities for the general public and constantly reminding the public what the Olympics was having for them was doing for them was the way the Games marketing strategy seemed to be leaning.
It was a very clever idea from the start to start involving such big family names within the Games, it automatically gives a sense of belonging to everyone. Buying a bottle of washing up liquid which boasts the famous 5 ring logo will immediately place the Olympics into consumers brains, making them think about it, talk about and each bottle starts the buzz the British Government so desperately strives for.

Using Jessica Ennis as the “face of the Olympics” also created a similar effect, Jessica is a working class girl with the stereotypical rags to riches story that the British public have come to love. She manages to connect with people in a way the archetypal Eton educated Government leader can not. She inspires people and this is exactly what the Marketing plan of the Olympics was for. Generate revenue for the Games in a way that benefits everyone.

However, there is much concern over the actual success of the Marketing plan from an Economic point of view.
Unless you are a business owner in central London or located very close to the transport links of a venue it is worried that the amenities at the Olympic grounds will actually steal trade. Whilst Jessica Ennis is an inspiration, does she have a high enough profile for her to really connect with people, especially young people. Finally, with travel warnings being released, companies allowing staff to work from home during the games and record amounts of holiday being booked off is the footfall trade within London actually ever going to occur? Enough to warrant 9.2bn spent on bidding, building and promoting these
Games.
Yes resources were bought to create the buildings, however double the amount spent buying them was paying the wages of the building staff and the ownership of the land. The Private Sector was leased many of these contracts which double backs on the Governments promise of bringing people into Government funded jobs, if they wanted to work within these games then most of the time it would be under a specific company.

Also by using such big brands within their Advertising, whilst including people it can also have an adverse affect and alienate people. 33% of British people are vegetarians and the sponsor of McDonalds or the deals it was offering would not be at all relevant to these people. Due to the economic downturn many families are struggling with luxuries such as holidays, especially on commercial airways such as British Airways.
By aiming your Advertising at the mass you automatically will alienate the minority, despite the minority sometimes being only a small percentage smaller than the majority.

Despite this, I believe that the Marketing plan of the London Olympics, will work incredibly well for boosting revenue for not only the Olympics but also the Country and London as a capital city.
London is already one of the most visited cities for Tourism and the Games can only help to better this. Alienating the minority is never a positive of Marketing however, in this case the majority is far larger an audience to target. McDonalds, Coca Cola and Visa are all multi-national corporations that either have branches or sell their products in every continent in the world. Unfortunately smaller home grown companies do not have the same pulling power when it comes to attracting consumers and the profits they can bring.