Social Media, Brands & the London Olympics 2012

Dear Friends,

It is fair to say that this year’s biggest event is the Olympics in London. It’s an extraordinary occasion where the strongest, fittest, and best athletes from all over the world come together to represent their proud countries, and fight for the gold medals. It’s also a big occasion for international brands to market to the masses.

The Olympics this year has been especially interesting for all of us digital nerds out there, as it was the first “real-time” Games we have ever had. This means that we no longer had to wait for TV coverage, or media to give us the news. We could access the results real-time, as it happened, on mobile apps or on social media (tweeted by an excited sports fan in London). Conversations around the Olympics on social media were greater than ever before. Twitter was especially popular as it opened up the possibility to have direct conversations with the athletes through tweets and re-tweets.

However, having access to this plethora of social media has its complexities and responsibilities, as so many athletes have realised. Infact, Australian athletes had been given a list of rules to guide their online behaviour. These rules were introduced to prevent athletes from making common social media mistakes. Two young Australian swimmers were banned early on from using social media for the entire duration of the Olympics, since they posted photos which the Australian Olympic Committee deemed inappropriate. Twitter even had an athlete booted from their Olympic team for posting a racist tweet.

There is a lot we can learn from these situations, as brand community managers using Social Media. Firstly, we need to remember that when we post on Social Media we represent a brand, not ourselves. Once we are in the public domain (as an athlete, or in our case, as a brand) we are open to scrutiny from every angle. 

At Piggieback, we recommend asking your-selves four important questions prior to posting on Social Media:

• What does this post say about the value system of my brand at a raw level?
• Is this a view which my brand completely personifies and will it be supported internally?
• What is the worst reaction that could come from this post, and do I have an action plan ready for it? 
• Would I be proud to show my grandma this post?

Marketing and Advertising for brands have had interesting results at the Olympics this year as well. The strict advertising rules surrounding the Olympics (including not being able to mention the word “Olympic” unless you’re a sponsor) and ambush marketing* prevention rules makes it extremely hard for advertisers to push non-sponsored brand advertising out to the public. All non-official sponsors of the Olympic Games have restrictions from advertising around the event venues. The official sponsors have paid millions of pounds for exclusivity in advertising and product placement at the stadium. This provides not only brand awareness opportunities, new product launch platforms, but a unique ability to deploy campaigns in concentrated uncontested advertising space. The rare opportunity this provides for these sponsors outweighs the millions of pounds invested. Nonetheless, competitor brands have been able to penetrate the market on a few occasions. Nike produced a very intelligent and well thought out advert, bending the rules and testing the limits of advertising rules, to cash in on the Olympic fever whilst getting one over on their arch-rival Adidas, official sponsor of the Olympics. The global TV campaign is featuring everyday athletes competing in places all around the world called London. 

Nike's advert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gHFhGDWP9Fs

The interesting thing about Nike’s campaign, and other non-official sponsors’ campaigns, is it is actually working. Statistics show that, although official brands have seen an increase in their sales revenue (you’d hope so as they paid millions of pounds for the privilege to be sponsors) non-sponsors such as Nike and Pepsi have seen an increase as well. It appears that the strict advertising rules backfired and non-sponsors seem to have been given a free public relations boost because of all the media coverage surrounding ambush marketing*. 

Piggieback would love to hear what you think! Is social media a place where one should be able to post whatever springs to mind? Do we need to think more wisely about what we post when we represent a brand other than ourselves? Should social media have the power to get someone booted or banned from the Games? Do you agree with the strict advertising rules surrounding the Olympics and do you think Nike has pushed them too far?

Have a great week everyone!

Piggieback

*Ambush Marketing definition from London2012.com:

“Also known as parasitic or guerrilla marketing, ambush marketing

describes a business’ attempts to attach itself to a major sports event

without paying sponsorship fees. As a result, the business gains the

benefits of being associated with the goodwill and public excitement

around the event for free. This damages the investment of genuine

sponsors, and risks the organiser’s ability to fund the event.”