Research Shows That Sponsors’ Victory Was Not Guaranteed At Sydney 2000

The Sydney 2000 Olympics saw Great Britain return with an impressive clutch of medals, but did the brands who shelled out the extra cash to become official sponsors of the Games finish in first place as well? The latest research from CIA Sensor suggests that a crowded field meant that victory was not guaranteed.

CIA’s survey of 500 adults found that a startling number of people- almost 50%- didn’t know who any of the official sponsors were, even with prompting. This was despite the fact that 80% claimed they had watched at least some of the Olympic coverage.

In many cases, brands which were not official sponsors still made sure they had a strong presence for the duration of the games, effectively hi-jacking consumer attention. VISA was correctly recalled by just 6% of those surveyed as being an official sponsor, but the same amount of people wrongly thought that rivals American Express were. The same thing happened with Nike, which made an impression on 22% of those surveyed in its sponsorship role…but Adidas, who provided the GB team kit, also convinced 22% that it was an official sponsor of the Games themselves. It was the same story at UPS and DHL, where both brands were recalled by just 2% of respondents as official sponsors- only UPS was.

Nike and Adidas are thought to have spent around £1m each on UK TV advertising while the Olympics were on. However, while Nike would have spent around £10-15m on its sponsorship, Adidas’ role as official outfitters will not have cost nearly as much. The fact that both are international brands must be taken into account, as the Adidas-clad GB team will have attracted less attention elsewhere, but in the UK, even among the heavy viewers who watched “highlights every day” or “a lot of the Games live”, Adidas was recalled even more (32%) than Nike (30%) as an official sponsor.

Exceptions to this rule only came in the form of two very strong international brands, Coca-Cola and MacDonalds, which were recalled by 20% and 17% respectively. Rivals Pepsi and Burger King were nevertheless erroneously recalled as official sponsors by 8% and 3% of respondents. The cost of pulling away like this will have been high for MacDonalds. As a ‘first tier’ sponsor, CIA estimates that around £40m would have been spent on sponsoring the games. Having brought out a new food line to tie in with the deal, a further £2m is thought to have been spent on TV advertising. Burger King evidently decided to bow out in the face of this competition, and stopped all TV advertising during the games…making that 3% seem rather a gift, really.

CIA feels that this data suggests that even sponsorship can suffer from “clutter” which dilute brand messages. “With so many major brands sponsoring so many different events consumers are finding it hard to differentiate” it says. The solution, CIA feels, is to use both the privileges that come with sponsorship and the fall in competitive advertising to make the most of the money invested.

CIA MediaLab: 020 7803 2000

Subscribers can access further information about sponsorship arrangements by selecting ‘Sponsorship’ from the drop down box at the top of this page.