This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 08:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of PromotionManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Official Sponsor versus RegularProgram Advertiser TelevisionStrategies for the SydneyOlympic 2000 GamesLeslie Jackson Turner PhD aa Department of Advertising/Public Relations,College of Communications , Pennsylvania StateUniversity , 221 Carnegie Building, University Park,PA, 16802-5100, USAPublished online: 22 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Leslie Jackson Turner PhD (2005) Official Sponsor versus RegularProgram Advertiser Television Strategies for the Sydney Olympic 2000 Games, Journalof Promotion Management, 11:4, 3-18, DOI: 10.1300/J057v11n04_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J057v11n04_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Official Sponsorversus Regular Program Advertiser

Television Strategiesfor the Sydney Olympic 2000 Games:

A Case StudyLeslie Jackson Turner

ABSTRACT. This case study concentrates on the broadcast networkTV advertising in the U.S. during the Sydney 2000 Olympics, utilizingtraditional descriptive content analysis to discover how advertisers madeuse of their sponsorship association with the Games. Olympic sponsor-ships typically involve a multi-year commitment with a broad spectrumof activities, including extensive on-site promotion. The Sydney Gameswere half a continent away from U.S. audiences and advertising duringthe televised coverage was a critical tool for sponsors to communicatetheir involvement to audiences. Issues to be addressed include howsponsors leveraged ties to the event and what they did to set themselvesapart from regular program advertisers (RPAs) who also ran ads duringcoverage of the games (i.e., Olympic specific ads and/or logo identifica-tion). The research cannot ascertain the effectiveness of an Olympicsponsorship, but it does reveal what sponsors of the Sydney Games didto maximize the impact of their advertising during televised coverage ofthe event. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Deliv-ery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Leslie Jackson Turner (PhD, Florida State University) is Assistant Professor, De-partment of Advertising/Public Relations, College of Communications, PennsylvaniaState University, 221 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA 16802-5100 (E-mail:ljt12@psu.edu).

Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 11(4) 2005Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JPM

2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J057v11n04_02 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

KEYWORDS. Australia, olympic games, promotion, regular programadvertisers (RPA), sponsorships, sports, television

INTRODUCTION

This case study concentrates on the television advertising during theSydney 2000 Olympics, utilizing traditional descriptive content analy-sis to discover how worldwide and U.S. sponsors made use of their as-sociation with the Games in comparison to each other and to RPAadvertisers. Television advertising is an integral component of many in-ternational event sponsorships as relatively few people actually go to anevent in comparison to the millions that may watch it on TV. The dis-tinction between an official sponsor and a RPA advertiser is increas-ingly important in international event marketing as the participationcosts have skyrocketed into mega-millions of dollars. Thus, Conven-tional Wisdom (what advertising professionals would expect) positsthat official sponsors did everything possible with spot scheduling andcreative ad executions to reinforce their association with the SydneyGames. Or, as one of my students said, “Why do a content analysis? Allof the ads are about the Olympics, right?”

Just how accurate is Conventional Wisdom, or CW, regarding the ad-vertising during the televised coverage of the 2000 Summer Olympics?To answer this question, it is necessary to look beyond individual ads, orartifacts, to patterns that can only be uncovered by examining the adver-tising as a whole through content analysis. If data collection stopped witha sampling of advertisers, one could miss relationships within the aggre-gate data. Generalizations from CW may provide interesting conversa-tion, but do little to advance the knowledge base from which advertiserscan make decisions about involvement in costly event sponsorships.

Background

Event sponsorship is a means of persuasion fundamentally differentfrom traditional advertising, but one that is nonetheless taking a moreprominent role in the integrated marketing programs of companiesworldwide. Professional and academic literature on the subject re-mains limited and superficial. “Sponsorship creates a link in the con-sumer’s mind between the brand and an event or organization that thetarget consumer values highly” (Crimmins and Horn, 1996, p. 12).Successful event marketing depends largely on knowing where to

4 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

spend the money, according to David D’Alessandro, President, CEO,of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, a major sponsor ofa variety of events including the Olympics and an annual U.S. gymnas-tics tour. D’Alessandro (1998) identified three criteria that his companyuses for selecting events to sponsor: (1) concentrate budgets on eventsthat the company can “own,” (2) align with events that enhance thebrand, involve the customers, and extend marketing reach, and (3) limitsponsorships to events that are well-run. While D’Alessandro’s com-ments represent but one perspective on effective event sponsorship,they address CW’s criteria for effective placement of this type of adver-tising, specifically category exclusivity, audience coverage, and cost ef-ficiency.

The mega-millions of dollars invested in event sponsorships are allthe more astounding when one realizes that measurement of this type ofadvertising remains a leap of faith. In a climate of increasing account-ability for all phases of integrated marketing programs, there still is noeffective empirical way to measure the value of an event sponsorshipbeyond obvious philanthropic considerations (Hoek, 1999).

Category exclusivity and audience coverage are measurable, but ac-count for a small portion of the sponsorship package. The most com-monly cited measurement tool in professional and academic literatureremains awareness and exposure (A&E). Cost effectiveness is deter-mined through combining name mentions, logo placement, and adsover the length of the event, then comparing the cost to the purchase ofequivalent exposure through advertising (Speed and Thompson, 2000).Crimmins and Horn (1996) emphasize the importance of realistic ex-pectations for sponsorship participation contingent upon factors such asa focused long-term integrated promotions commitment to the event(including the purchase of the broadcast category ad time) and develop-ing a direct link to the event through advertising creative messages.

Olympic Sponsorships

The Olympic sponsorship is generally perceived to be the most pres-tigious of all events. Corporate sponsorships are available for virtuallyall phases of the Olympic experience, including transferring the flamefrom Greece to the host city, a country’s team, a particular sport or indi-vidual athlete. Worldwide sponsors of the Sydney 2000 Games as iden-tified on the Official Sydney Olympic web site included Coca-Cola,IBM, Visa, John Hancock, Fuji Xerox, UPS, McDonald’s, Kodak,Samsung, Panasonic, and Sports Illustrated/Time, Inc. This level of

Leslie Jackson Turner 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

sponsorship is also the most expensive; each of those companies paid anestimated $50 million in official fees. Costs at other levels vary fromcountry or origin, event popularity, and other factors. Sponsoring com-panies at any level are entitled to use Olympic phrases and imagery intheir advertising. The International Olympic Committee believes iden-tification as an “official sponsor” is of great value to advertisers and dil-igently oversees the use of the Games’ indicia. Per the Games’ officialwebsite, the Sydney 2000 Games Indicia and Images Protection Act ofthe Commonwealth of Australia 1996 (Sydney Protection Act, http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/comact/9/4670/top.htm) and a related Amend-ment Act 1997 (http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/comact/9/5595/top.htm)identified specific phrases and imagery that may only be used by offi-cial Olympic sponsors (Montague, 1998):

1. Key phrases

a. “Olympic”/“Olympiad” or any variation,b. Sydney/Australia or any geographic reference,c. “Share the Spirit” or any variation,d. “sponsor” and “Sydney,” “Olympics,” or “Summer Games,”e. the words “games” and “2000,” ”24th,” or “Summer,”

2. Imagery

a. Olympic symbols (i.e., rings) or indicia,b. the Sydney mascots or variations,c. any medals (i.e., gold, silver, or bronze),d. any recognizable sports figure and reference to location or games,d. any current Olympic athlete in any capacity,e. any previous Olympic athlete in any capacity,f. landmarks of host city/country,g. images of previous Olympics,h. situations where the Olympics are discussed.

Why is an Olympic sponsorship so desirable? Representatives fromworldwide sponsors identified reasons why their companies are willingto commit significant advertising dollars to the Games. Visa enjoys asuccessful relationship with the Olympics since becoming a top-tiersponsor in 1986, realizing what Joe Carberry, Director of Corporate Af-fairs, identifies as “equity transfer.” Carberry said, “In focus groups,people now talk about Visa in the same way they talk about the Olym-

6 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

pics. They talk about things like leadership, competence, and accept-ability” (Shalit, 2000). John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Companyexecutives see tangible benefits from association with the Games. SteveBurgay, VP, said, “We know, based on the research we’ve done, thatwhen you co-brand with the rings, there is a halo effect” (Shalit, 2000).Coca-Cola, another long-term worldwide sponsor who spent over $300million worldwide on Sydney Olympic marketing and advertising pro-grams, has a worldwide sponsorship deal through 2008. Scott McCune,Director of Worldwide Sports for Coca-Cola, said, “The power of theOlympics is passion. People are passionate about the Games. It’s a greatvehicle for us to develop a relationship with consumers” (Unger, 2000,p. C3).

The Olympics on TV

By 1972, television revenues had replaced ticket sales as the princi-pal income source for the Olympics despite the plethora of corporatesponsorships (Real, 1999). “Of all mega-sporting events, the OlympicGames remain the crown jewel for any broadcast network” (Billings,Eastman and Newton, 1998, p. 65). The Olympics historically attract abroad audience as viewers are drawn to the drama of individuals whotrain for years for their chance to compete in the Games; television net-works have refined their coverage of the Games to capitalize on thisbroad audience appeal. Two factors impact television advertising forthe Olympics from the sponsor’s perspective:

1. Television advertising is not included in an Olympic sponsorshippackage–it’s a separate cost. It is a cost sponsors grudgingly ac-cept because of the event’s inherent credibility with audiences; inan exclusive interview with Newsweek Online, D’Alessandrosaid, “I’ll take one [ratings] point on the ‘Olympics’ over twopoints on ‘Survivor’ because of the credibility of the kind of buy”(Starr, 2000). During the Sydney Olympics, a 30-second spot dur-ing the NBC telecast cost approximately $615,000 (Shalit, 2000).

2. Securing category exclusivity (buying out all of the commercialtime allocated to their product category) is a cost that some spon-sors are unable or unwilling to pay, resulting in the network sell-ing the remaining commercial time to RPA advertisers. Thus, aworldwide sponsor might be grouped with an individual teamsponsor and several RPAs in the same commercial pod.

Leslie Jackson Turner 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

NBC, the official television sponsor of the 2000 Summer Games, ran441 total hours of coverage on the network and its cable affiliates,CNBC and MSNBC (Baker, 2000). When the Olympics are not in theU.S., television ratings are lower and the Sydney Games were no excep-tion. Dubbed the “Autumn Olympics” in the media, the Games werescheduled in late September (September 15-October 1) to accommo-date Australia’s weather, timing that put the TV coverage in competi-tion with college and professional football games, new fall shows, andthe baseball pennant race (Martzke, 2000). The time delay from Austra-lia to the U.S. meant that only segment introductions and some of the in-terviews with athletes were televised live. NBC commentators toldviewers, “To present these Olympics at a time convenient to you–that is,while you’re awake–the event coverage you’ll see broadcast will be ontape” (Horn, 2000). The only exception was the broadcast of the men’sbasketball gold medal game that happened to be scheduled for Sundayafternoon in Sydney or late prime time in the U.S. The network also lostaudiences to its own cable partners and the Internet, where event resultswere reported in real time.

CW would indicate conservative ratings projections given these “redflag” factors, but NBC gave advertisers a 90% delivery guarantee on a16.1 projected household rating (Zap2it.com, 2000). That is, any time au-dience estimates dipped more than 10% below original projections, thenetwork would give “makegood spots” to bring audience delivery up tothe guaranteed level. When American athletes did not perform well, peo-ple tuned out; on those nights when the U.S. athletes performed well, rat-ings were higher (Martzke, 2000). Overall audience delivery averaged10% lower than projected, ranging from a low of 10.6 on Friday, Septem-ber 29 to the high of 16.1 on Sunday, September 24. NBC had originallyplanned to run 18 commercials per hour, but less than a week into theGames the network upped the number of commercial units to 20 per hourto make up audience delivery shortfalls (Hampson, 2000).

METHODOLOGY

This study is limited to the broadcast network coverage. Only $27million (3%) of the estimated $900 million advertising dollars were al-located to NBC’s cable affiliates, indicating the importance advertisersplaced on broadcast network coverage of the event (Baker 2000). Fol-lowing CW and the literature review of sponsorships, a list of hypothe-ses about advertising during the Sydney Games was developed.

8 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hypothesis 1: Exclusivity. Official sponsors ran a sufficient numberof spots to achieve category exclusivity or dominanceduring the Games.

Hypothesis 2: Recognition. Official sponsors identified themselvesas such, showing Olympic images, symbols, and situa-tions.

Hypothesis 3: Association. Official sponsors centered their advertis-ing creative around their Olympic partnership.

Four undergraduate student analysts examined the content of the ad-vertisements, using a coding sheet developed by the researcher. Datawas collected for each network ad. The researcher verified that only net-work ads were in the data set through a two-step process. First, codersrecorded all ads so they were not responsible for making judgmentsabout local versus national commercial breaks. Second, the researcherdeleted local ads from the coding sheets before data entry based on con-sultation with the local NBC affiliate to confirm local sponsors and ex-tensive viewing of the tapes prior to distribution to the coders.

Coding Procedure

Coder training followed the model presented in Peterson’s 1998 study,“The portrayal of children’s activities in television commercials.” Thecoders had prior experience with the content analysis method, so it wasdetermined that two one-hour training sessions would be sufficient toprepare them for this project. Kolbe and Burnett (1991) identify theneed for careful review of inter-coder reliability and care was taken tofollow their procedures for instruction on coding method, definitionsand categories. During the first session, coders were briefed on the re-search objectives, expedient techniques for completing the coding sheetswere discussed, and the coding team viewed a sampling of the tapedcoverage. They also received a handout with the precise definitionsfrom the Sydney Protection Act to use as a guideline for recognizingsponsor imagery and wording. At the second meeting, the coders’ un-derstanding of the procedures was confirmed through a practice codingsession. They watched three sets of network advertisements and re-corded their observations. Responses were remarkably consistent, duein part to prior experience with this type of research. The exact wordingof their observations varied, but identifications were similar enough thatthe researcher had no difficulty recognizing specific ads. Further, aChi-square test of homogeneity of their responses revealed that the ana-

Leslie Jackson Turner 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

lysts’ observations did not differ significantly at the 0.02 level, provid-ing satisfactory evidence of inter-coder reliability.

The coders were assigned videotapes to examine and were instructedto work independently. Since this study involved viewing 162.5 hoursof broadcast coverage, the researcher took preemptive steps to mini-mize coder fatigue by breaking the project down into manageable units.Coders received tapes with a maximum of 6 hours of coverage at a time.They were instructed to evaluate the material as discreet units; that is,each time period, i.e., morning coverage from 10:00 a.m.-12 noon, wastreated as an individual unit with new coding sheets for each unit. Acommercial pod was treated as an individual unit as well, reinforced byinstructions to skip a line on the coding sheet between pods. Finally,they were required to turn in each tape when completed, providing anopportunity to regularly interact with the researcher about the projectstatus. This approach appeared to be effective as each of the codersmade unsolicited comments to the researcher about the convenienceand manageability of the assignment.

FINDINGS

The 3,507 total spots identified by the coders represent 112 com-panies with over 200 products in 21 different categories. Frequenciesanalysis determined that the ad counts were evenly distributed be-tween prime (50.8%) and non-prime (49.2%) programming. Thirtycompanies accounted for 75.1% of the total ads. The top 10 advertis-ers were General Motors, Coca-Cola, NBC, AT&T, IBM, Anheuser-Busch, Visa International, Johnson & Johnson Merck, McDonald’s,and GlaxoSmith/Kline. In total, only 20.3% of the spots included spon-sor identification. Even fewer total spots (17.6%) used any of thephrases identified by the Sydney Protection Act as reserved for officialsponsors, with the most popular being Olympic/Olympiad or any varia-tion. Thirty percent of the total ads contained imagery identified by theSydney Protection Act as reserved for official sponsors, with the mostpopular being Olympic symbols (i.e., rings) or indicia and/or any cur-rent Olympic athlete.

Official worldwide sponsors combined represented 23.4% of the to-tal ads. Coca Cola, IBM, McDonald’s, and Visa were among the top tenindividual advertisers, Kodak, UPS, and Samsung ranked in the top 20advertisers, and John Hancock ranked 34th in total spots run during theGames (Table 1).

10 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The U.S. Olympic/broadcast sponsors combined represented 26.4%of the total ads. GM, AT&T, and Anheuser-Busch were among the top10 advertisers, Bank of America and Monster.com ranked in the top 20advertisers, and the other U.S. sponsors, including Home Depot, Tex-aco, Sun America, Goodyear Tire, Nestle’s, and Delta Airlines rankedfurther down the list of top advertisers (Table 2).

Combined, the official sponsors represented 49.8% of ads during theGames, leaving RPAs ample opportunity to create their own associa-tions with the Games. Careful evaluation of spot content by advertiserrevealed that RPAs did not posit themselves as associated with theGames, with a few exceptions. Tiger Woods, a “recognizable sports fig-ure,” already had ads running for two different companies, the TargetHouse campaign with Target Stores and a spot for Chevrolet, an officialsponsor through the GM corporate sponsorship. Target Stores also hadan existing campaign with Scott Hamilton, a “recognizable sports fig-ure” as well as a “previous Olympic athlete,” for the Target credit card

Leslie Jackson Turner 11

TABLE 1. Official Worldwide Sponsors Advertising Summary

OfficialWorldwideSponsor

ProductsFeatured

AdCounts

AdRanking

# ofSponsorBreaks

% of Adswith

SponsorID

% of Adswith

Phrases

% of Adswith

Imagery

Coca-Cola Coca-Cola,DasaniWater,Minute Maid,PowerAde,and Sprite

211 2 27 21.8% 18.0% 45.0%

JohnHancock

corporate 38 34 6 100% -- --

Kodak corporate 70 13 18 -- -- --

McDonald’s corporate andproducts

90 9 12 51.1% 23.3% 83.3%

Visa card andcorporate

110 7 18 25.4% 40.9% 46.4%

Xerox corporate andproducts

53 21 7 -- 2.0% 71.7%

IBM corporate andproducts

121 5 26 38.8% 44.6% 46.3%

UPS corporate andproducts

73 12 12 86.3% 56.2% 96.0%

Samsung corporate andproducts

57 15 9 42.1% 100% 100%

OfficialSponsorsTotals

823 135

NOTE: Panasonic and Sports Illustrated/Time, Inc. did not run TV advertising.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

and Target’s philanthropic contributions to local communities. Targetran these ads one time each, but otherwise made no reference to Olym-pic affiliation in their advertising. Bristol Meyers ran an existing adwith Lance Armstrong, a “recognizable sports figure” as well as a “cur-rent Olympic athlete,” about a new cancer treatment developed by thecompany. The only controversy came from Nike in an ad featuring U.S.Olympic runner Suzy Favor Hamilton in a parody of The Texas Chain-saw Massacre with the tag line, “Why sport? You’ll live longer” (Good-man, 2000). The research indicates the ad ran approximately 8 times

12 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

TABLE 2. Official U.S. Sponsors Advertising Summary

OfficialU.S.

Sponsor

ProductsFeatured

AdCounts

AdRank-

ing

# ofSponsorBreaks

% ofAdswith

SponsorID

% ofAdsWith

Phrases

% ofAdswith

Imagery

GM Corporate,Buick, Cadillac,Chevrolet,GMC,Oldsmobile, On-Star, Pontiac,Saab, and Saturn

368 1 78 40.0% 44.3% 48.9%

Anheuser-Busch,Inc

Corporate, BudLight,Budweiser,Michelob Light,and Busch

117 6 48 70.0% 43.6% 88.9%

Home Depot corporate andproducts

40 32 12 95.0% 70.0% 95.0%

Sun America “Sun AmericaSports Desk”daily segment

36 36 24 -- -- --

AT&T “Citius, Altius,Fortius” dailysegment

154 4 55 -- -- --

Goodyear Tire &RubberCompany

“Aerialphotographybrought to youby the Goodyearblimp”

33 37 10 -- -- --

Nestle's Power Bar 29 41 3 48.3% 75.0% 100%

Bank of America corporate andproducts

51 23 6 86.3% 60.8% 88.2%

Texaco corporate andproducts

40 33 5 100% 42.5% 92.5%

Monster.com corporate andproducts

43 29 6 88.4% 58.1% 90.7%

Delta Airlines corporate andproducts

17 53 5 70.6% 11.8% 76.5%

OfficialSponsors Totals

928 252

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

before the network was forced to remove it due to audience complaintsabout content.

DISCUSSION

I began this study with no preconceived ideas. My interest in eventsponsorships, specifically the Olympics, emerged from years of medianegotiation and the chance reading of an article about the amount ofmoney involved in this type of advertising. Inherent media plannerskepticism made me question the value of these sponsorships. CW is thelogical foil for this type of study as scholarly research in this area is lim-ited but opinion abounds on the subject. CW would indicate that officialOlympic sponsors were at a competitive advantage and capitalized on it.When CW is put to the test, a decidedly different picture of the SydneyOlympics network advertising emerges.

Hypothesis 1: Exclusivity

Official sponsors ran a sufficient number of spots to achieve categoryexclusivity or dominance during the Games. NBC determined the num-ber of advertisers per category in conjunction with the anticipated ad-vertising allotment. Sponsors had first right of refusal on all of thecommercial time allocated to their product category. CW would indicatea preponderance of sponsor advertisers with a high volume of ads, but,few sponsors allocated the budget to buy out the ad time allocated totheir category. Only Coca-Cola, Kodak, Visa, and Anheuser-Busch hadcategory exclusivity. Without it, sponsors competed for audience atten-tion with a host of other advertisers; for example, John Hancock, aworldwide sponsor, was not a major player in the televised coverage ofthe Games and competed in a crowded financial services category withAmeritrade, Bank of America, Caldwell Banker, Charles Schwab, Ja-nus, Principal Finance and Prudential.

The low ratings for the Summer Games coverage also impacted thetotal number of spots to the detriment of official sponsors. As previ-ously mentioned, NBC gave advertisers a 90% delivery guarantee on a16.1 projected household rating (Zap2it.com, 2000). With overall audi-ence delivery averaging 10% lower than projections, NBC started run-ning “makegood spots” four days after the Games started. Over the twoweek period, the impact of the “makegood spots” surely upset the spon-sor-to-RPA advertising ratio.

Leslie Jackson Turner 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The final sponsor-to-RPA advertising ratio was virtually 50/50. RPAsdid not violate the criteria established by the International OlympicCommittee for ad content–ambush advertising was not a factor in theU.S. broadcast coverage of the Sydney Games. What RPAs were able todo was to create an implied association with the Games though the totalamount of advertising during the coverage. Nike, Target, Honda, andPrudential Insurance were not sponsors, but ranked in the top 20 adver-tisers. Through the volume of their commercials, these advertiserscould appear to be in partnership with the Games to viewers unaware ofthe distinction between sponsors and RPA advertisers. CW might be-lieve viewers of the Games are sophisticated enough to know the differ-ence between the two, but it is unlikely that viewers could tell or careabout the distinction between sponsor and RPA advertising.

Hypothesis 2: Recognition

Official sponsors identified themselves as such, showing Olympic im-ages, symbols, and situations. One would expect, at minimum, sponsoracknowledgment to be a fundamental component of all ads, especiallythose with unrelated product-specific creative messages. Or as CW wouldsay, why pay for the sponsorship if the ads don’t tell viewers about it? Theresults of the content analysis results were quite unexpected in this area.

Perhaps most surprising was the creative strategy for worldwidesponsors. Among the worldwide sponsors, only John Hancock used avisual sponsor tag in every ad. UPS forged the strong association withthe Games as 86% of their spots had sponsor identification. Coca-Cola,whose 200+ ads featured six different products, only ran sponsor identi-fication in 21% of the ads. Visa has a long-standing ad campaign toutingall of the events they sponsor, “Be sure to bring your Visa card. . . .”These product-specific ads ran along with corporate messages duringthe Games, but only 25% of Visa’s ads contained sponsor identification.Kodak has a history of involvement with the Olympics, but it was notapparent in their ads during the Sydney Games. Kodak and Xerox didnot identify themselves as sponsors in any of their ads. Thus it wouldappear there was a lack of strategy and corporate oversight to make cer-tain all spots consistently reinforce the Olympic association.

In contrast, U.S. sponsors were much more aggressive in their use ofsponsor identification and phrases and imagery. General Motors was thedominant advertiser during the Games and featured a variety of products,including co-op ads with GM-United Automobile Workers. Of the 10products featured, only the creative for GMC, Saab, and Saturn did not in-

14 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

clude any Olympic identification. All other products advertising includedsponsor identifications and extensive use of phrases and imagery. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., made extensive use of sponsor identification as well asphrases and imagery of the Games. Of the five different products adver-tised (a corporate message, Bud Light, Budweiser, Michelob Light andBusch), only the Busch Beer ads contained no reference to the Games.McDonald’s did much to set themselves apart as an official sponsor in thecrowded fast food/restaurant category. Competing with Applebee’s,Chili’s, Domino’s, KFC, the Olive Garden, Papa John’s, Pizza Hut,Subway, Taco Bell, and Wendy’s, McDonald’s made extensive use ofsponsor identification, phrases and imagery from the Games in theircreative. Nestle Company advertised four different products during theGames, but only Power Bar was identified as a sponsor. The Power Barspots featured sponsor identification with phrases and imagery. HomeDepot, Bank of America, Texaco, Monster.com, and Delta Airlines didnot have category exclusivity, but all made extensive use of sponsoridentification as well as phrases and imagery in their advertising. OnlySun America, AT&T, and Goodyear did not use any Olympic identifi-cation, but these companies compensated by sponsoring on-air seg-ments to set themselves apart from the rest of the advertisers.

Hypothesis 3: Association

Official sponsors centered their advertising creative around theirOlympic partnership. Contrary to CW, sponsor identification with theGames does not equate to event-specific creative executions. All spon-sor advertising need not be Olympic-themed, but one would certainlyexpect that advertisers running 50 or more ads in two weeks would ro-tate products and creative execution styles to reduce viewer fatigue. Asreferenced in the literature, successful event sponsorship includes de-veloping a direct link to the event. The link is not limited to ad execu-tions; ties to the Games can take many forms, such as themed nightlysegments, on-air contests, and involvement with athletes.

Worldwide sponsors were overall relatively ineffective in capitaliz-ing on their involvement with the Games, even though six of the ninecompanies were among the top 20 advertisers. Coca-Cola stood outwith different methods of tying the brand to the Games. As the officialnon-alcoholic beverage of the Games, sponsorship was implied duringactual coverage of events with the Powerade beverage. While productidentification is not “officially” allowed within Olympic venues, thedistinctive color and shape of the bottle clearly indicated that Powerade

Leslie Jackson Turner 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

was the only beverage that athletes drank during their competitions.Coca-Cola also sponsored a nightly segment about the athletes.

U.S. sponsors, on the other hand, capitalized on their involvementwith the Games by showing how they contributed to the success of theU.S. Olympians or set themselves apart from the competition by withregular feature segments highlighting moments from the Games. HomeDepot ran creative showing their own employees who were Olympians.As the only advertiser in the home improvement retailer category, theireffective creative set them apart from other sponsors as a company inti-mately involved with the Games. Sun America approached advertisingin a crowded financial services category by creating the “Sun AmericaSports Desk” daily feature. The company only ran 36 spots during theGames, none of which included sponsor identification or phrases andimagery, but the nightly exposure with the Sports Desk feature set SunAmerica apart from others in the category.

AT&T followed the same approach as Sun America. Even though thecompany had category exclusivity, none of the AT&T product spots in-cluded sponsor identification or phrases and imagery. Instead, the com-pany sponsored the “Citius, Altius, Fortius” segment, featuring past andpresent Olympians who demonstrated exceptional personal qualities,such as courage or bravery, to compete in the Games. The nightly vi-gnettes established the emotional connection between AT&T and theGames while their advertising featured products. The Goodyear Tireand Rubber Company is a staple at athletic events through the GoodyearBlimp and the Sydney Olympics was no exception. Goodyear ran 33spots with no sponsor identification or phrases and imagery from theGames, but received frequent recognition with the announcement, “Ae-rial photography brought to you by the Goodyear Blimp.”

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

With sponsorship costs spiraling above $50 million, the obvious con-cern is getting the maximum value for dollars invested. This researchcannot ascertain the effectiveness of an Olympic sponsorship because itis limited to one component of multi-faceted program, broadcast net-work advertising. It is, in effect, a cautionary tale for those advertisersconsidering the addition of event sponsorship to their marketing pro-grams by revealing what sponsors of the Sydney Games did not do withthis critical component of their sponsorship programs.

16 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

This case study represents the part of a longitudinal study on Olym-pics sponsorships. Content analysis is the important first step in facili-tating many other types of analysis. Content does not equal effect, buteffects research cannot begin without first taking into account the mes-sages that supposedly caused the effect. Now that the advertising for theSydney Games has been quantified and categorized, investigation canfocus on the impact of the advertising. Potential scenarios emergedfrom the analysis to postulate how viewers reacted to the advertising.Areas of study include the evaluation of message content as a factor ofsponsor recognition and the impact of message placement on ad effec-tiveness. These theories should be evaluated through message effectsresearch. For example, do RPAs get the same benefit from their merepresence in the broadcasts?

The results of this research could ultimately impact the way sponsorsview their investments. The implied assumption of sponsorship is com-petitive advantage, but it is incumbent upon sponsors to utilize creativeand media placement opportunities to reap the rewards of their associa-tion with the event. The sponsorship has no value if the audience doesnot recognize the advertiser as a sponsor.

REFERENCES

Baker, Jim (2000, June 30). Sports on the air; No taper off for NBC, Boston Herald, 78.Berelson, Bernard (1971). Content Analysis in Communication Research. New York:

Hafner.Billings, Andrew C.; Eastman, Susan Tyler; and Newton, Gregory D. (1998). Atlanta

revisited: Prime-time promotion in the 1996 Summer Olympics, Journal of Sportsand Social Issues, 22(1), 65-78.

Conventional wisdom watch: Year of living strangely edition (2000, December 26),Newsweek.

Crimmins, James, and Horn, Martin (1996). Sponsorship: From management ego tripto marketing success, Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 11-21.

D’Alessandro, David (1998). Event marketing: Winners, losers and chumps, VitalSpeeches for the Day, 64(10), 296-301.

Donnan, Shawn (2000, September 5). Ambush ads grab glory from Olympic sponsors,Financial Times, Asia-Pacific Edition, 10.

Goodman, Ellen (2000, September 25). True comedy from the people who sell youshoes, Centre Daily Times, A6.

Hampson, Rick (2000, September 25). Counting the reasons viewers shun Games–Rat-ings plunge as web sites, cable, radio steal NBC’s delayed thunder, USA Today, 1A.

Hermann, Enno (2000). Sale of the millennium: The 2000 Olympics and Australia’scorporate identity, Media International Australia, 94(2), 173-181.

Leslie Jackson Turner 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hoek, Janet (1999). Sponsorship: An evaluation of management assumptions and prac-tices, Marketing Bulletin, 10, 1-10.

Horn, Barry (2000). NBC’s Olympic coverage will be completely taped, not live, Cen-tre Daily Times, A4.

Kassarjian, Harold H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research, Journal of Con-sumer Research, 4(6), 8-18.

Kolbe, Richard H., and Burnett, Melissa S. (1991). Content-analysis research: An ex-amination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and ob-jectivity, Journal of Consumer Research, 18(9), 243-250.

Krippendorff, Klaus (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Landler, Mark (2000, September 29). Fighting marketing pirates: Olympics sponsorsguard their investments, New York Times, C1.

Martzke, Rudy (2000, September 19). Games’ ratings listless; tape delay, NFL cited asfactors, USA Today, 1A.

McCarthy, Michael (2000, September 25). Crafty Qantas rides Olympic coattails, USAToday, 4B.

McClellan, Steve (2000, June 26). NBC goes for the gold, Broadcasting & Cable,130(27), 18-19, 22.

Meenaghan, Tony (1996). Point of view: Ambush marketing: Immoral or imaginativepractice? Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), 77-88.

Montague, Claudia (1998, March). As the worm turns, Marketing Tools, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3267/is_199803/ai_n7967672.

Peterson, Robin T. (1998). The portrayal of children’s activities in television commer-cials, Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1541-1549.

Real, Michael R. (1999). Is television corrupting the Olympics? Television Quarterly,30(2), 100-109.

Shalit, Ruth (2000, September 30). Chain saws, drugs and lesbians, Salon, http://www.salon.com/business/col/shalit/2000/09/30/olympic_ads/index.html.

Shoebridge, Neil (2000, September 10). Olympics cash ‘drain’ a pain for sports pro-moters, BRW (Australia).

Snider, Mike (2000, September 21). New media holds up against traditional sportssites, USA Today, 3E.

Stamler, Bernard (2000a, September 5). A company’s ad is rejected for coasting on themomentum of the Olympic Games, New York Times, C8.

Stamler, Bernard (2000b, August 21). McDonald’s pushes to get its money’s worth onOlympic tie-ins, New York Times, A9.

Starr, Mark (2000, October 5). Questions & answers: What next for the IOC? MSNBC.com.

Unger, Henry (2000, September 18). Business of the Games: Coca-Cola, Home Depotand UPS; Taking care of business, Sydney 2000: Summer Olympics Special Sec-tion, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, A3.

Received: February 19, 2003Revised: March 28, 2004Accepted: April 30, 2004

18 JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

54 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014