As we approach the "less than a year until 2012" point of 2011 I've noticed a huge ramp up in the number of adverts that have a 2012 logo attached. It got me thinking what an odd concept this kind of sponsorship is. A big company offers the organisers and participants of 2012 their product/service in a large enough quantity that in return the Olympic committee emails them copies of the logo to put on all subsequent advertisements.
So to offset the expenditure of freeness to the 2012 people the company must think that having the 2012 logo on their advert will translate to an increase of revenue. That's what i can't quite understand. How far up your list of priorities does "Olympic sponsorship" come when purchasing goods or services?
Mother: Well of course i'd rather give my child rusks in warm milk but they don't sponsor the Olympics. So he's got a bowl of Coca Cola soaked McDonalds and a bar of Cadburys chocolate instead. Because it's important that we support those that support the games.
Father: We want what's best for our child. The Olympics inspires and reflects the very best ideals in people. I refuse to believe that any of the sponsors would harm our little soldier. That's why we'll only raise him on products that come with the Olympic logo on.
As this poor (fictional) child slips into a diabetic coma I'm stood looking at it wondering if GlaxoSmithKline make diabetes tests and insulin. Because as official drug paraphernalia sponsor it's them or nobody.
Oh and they make Ribena too. Which is chock full of delicious nutritious vitamin C. Or not.
The group Charity Insight have provided a list of sponsors/partners/providers here.
No comments:
Post a Comment