Olympics Brand | Country or Regional Branding | Promoting a City

Do the Olympics promote a city to any lasting effect?

Being a former Olympic city raises the bar for a city. It establishes a municipal brand on the world stage.

Howard Shanks - July 30, 2004

However, the cost may be impossible to bear when it comes to countries with weak economies like Greece.

Anonymous - August 2, 2004

Although difficult to measure, Sydney's new opportunities and potential returns from their excellently run Games must have been diminished simply by timing -- i.e. the subsequent new travel fears stemming from the arrival of SARS in Asia and the horrific terrorist actions in the USA.

And incidentally, the new method used by some host governments to conceal the true cost/benefit equation for an Olympic Games (and there certainly are benefits as well as costs) is concealing the true extent of the costs by assigning many of them to other 'non olympic' budget areas, thereby squeezing for several years these Departments' capacities to provide existing levels of community services & activities. Further losses can also occur simply as a result of the need to maintain the newly constructed facilities - unless good advance planning is in place. But on the positive side of the ledger, city infrastructure improvements from Olympic's spending bring lasting community benefits (e.g. improved transit systems) and further enhance the city's future visitor experience!

Bruce Dickson - August 2, 2004

I have been involved in both the Sydney Olympics and Rugby World Cup 2003 in Australia. Both bring enormous country branding benefits -- if you as a country/city work them.

Those interested can read my paper on the subject (PDF).

Andrew Woodward, Director, Gavin Anderson & Company Australia - August 2, 2004

Sure, staging an Olympics will raise your city's profile but surely for a nation to see any long term gain, they must have something to offer in the first place.

I would presume that Atlanta was always going to be percieved as a lesser tourist destination city than LA and Athens will be compared to Barcelona.

Anonymous - August 3, 2004

Taking center stage while the international spotlight zooms in can only be regarded as a golden opportunity for any city with serious tourism offerings. However, I believe that the 'lasting effects' of the investments and expenditures for a project such as the Olympics can only be minimal.

The question has to be: What would happen if all the money, energy and involvement poured into a project like the Olympics were instead entirely focused on generating tourism with city-brand building? For instance, what if infrastructure expenditures went to refurbishing inner cities and national landmarks instead of constructing Olympic villages? Or the money spent on a branding campaign touting the Olympics went into explicitly branding the city and what it had to offer?

Wouldn’t all that be a greater enticement for the millions of tourists that prefer to avoid the hype and crowds (not to mention security risks) of an Olympic-host city -– even after the games are over?

If my city were to enter a candidacy to host of the Olympic Games, I would feel inclined to recommend against it.

Kurt B. Geiger, Copywriter, www.kurtgeiger.nu - August 4, 2004

It may be a lot of effort but the ability to beam the qualities of your city around the world are priceless.

It also tells the world that you're not some bumbling two-bit city, but a place that can stand on the world stage.

Rosalyn - August 9, 2004

Having worked for or with the Olympics since LA '84, I believe the Games offer one of the best opportunities to showcase a city when advance planning and budgeting takes precedent over ego.

Jeff Bliss, President, The Javelin Group - August 9, 2004

Olympic games? So you build a stadium (that looks like all the others) and you show thousands of doves flying at your opening ceremony. Big deal!

How many people visit cities because of their Olympis facilities? (Not many I think).

Better to invest in infrastructure and inspiring sights (e.g. London Eye, Guggenheim centres).

Even better (for 2012 bid), the UK votes for Paris to host and travel on the Eurostar. We get the benefits of the games without the disruption it causes.

Steven Geary, Content Manager, RS - August 9, 2004

It should be viewed as an investment, with the return being a better image to the world. The Olympics do have a certain luster (Airplay to Mind share), If done right it can lead to an increase in tourism...long term. If money is made from the games even better.

However the fact that terrorist threats are running rampant already make the above statement illusive. It's a shame that terrorist threats have hurt Greece's ability to fully leverage the Olympic roots angle.

Jason - August 10, 2004

The question if getting the games are wotrh it or not for a city, is wrong. If you look at the economical aspect and compare for example Barcelona (big expensive summer games) and Lillehammer (wintergames, not as big, not the same investment as summer games) you´ll find that Lillehammer is ranked as one of the most well-organized games in modern times. A big success -- but a failiure if you look at it as a longterm investment. Because Lillehammer is a town that cannot use the leverage a game can provide. It´s to small with not enough visitors. And it will never be. Barcelona on the other hand, will.

Take the example with the port area that was restored from being a toxic dump to being a site for the Olympic sailing competiotions. It is now, and has been since 1992, a fantastic meeting/shopping/beaching-place in the the end of La Rambla, for all Barcelonians. It has been done so that a visitor in one day in Barca can take in the genius of Gaudi constructions, lounge in the beach, shop at Zara and enjoy tapas and katalan nightlife in a bar.

In how many years should one divide the investment to be able to see if it was worth it? Not 12 for sure -- more like 72... And for those who have been in a city during a game -- they are mostly for sure in favor. The feeling of being in a melting pot with people from the whole world is intoxicating. The proudness it creates in the people living in the city can't be bought by other ways of branding the city. It just can´t. But the city has to have a certain size to be able to use all benefits -- otherwise they´re in for a looong hangover.

Thomas Brenemark, Senior Consultant, Rewir Communication Management Consultants - August 11, 2004

An event as big as the Olympics leads to the City Board investing in a burst which it would have otherwise not done. And when we look at it as an investment, it would then be incorrect to expect a break even with the few days that the event is on.

The civic facilities see an improvement, the infrastructure improves and I think more importantly the city's readiness to combat threats also heads north because of an additional investment in the training of security forces.

Mohit Chhabra, Asst Editor (Research), Dataquest - August 16, 2004

Yes! For example, what would Lake Placid be without the Olympics?

Katie Rider, Principal, MorganMackenzie - August 16, 2004

Barcelona is still reaping the rewards from a trade fair at the turn of the century that saw, for that purpose, the creation of the "Poble Espanyol" (an eclectic collection of buildings anachronistically juxtaposed in a courtyard). It remains one of the very alluring treasures of the city--the financial benefits of which are nigh impossible to quantify. The Olympics similarly fuelled the development of such attractions (including the Olympic village).

Cities that host the Olympics do so knowing the after-life benefit to their tourist industry is impossible to quantify over the next century for which it is likely have an effect.

Alex Mitchel, Marketing Exec, Jordans - August 19, 2004

As an Australian who was living in the US but who also went to the games (and now lives in the UK) I heard more comments about Australia stemming from this one book than from all the Olympic coverage. Improvements to Sydney's transport infrastructure were a bonus, but would have had to be done irrespective of the games. As for the venues it is a similar story, although to put things in perspective Sydney (3.9 million people) already had at least thirty 50m pools – London (7 million+) currently has just one!

If the games are such a business catalyst then why is Sydney the business hub of Australia? In 1956 Melbourne had the games and at that time almost all major Australian companies had their head offices located there. All but one now have their head office in Sydney!

Given the huge cost in being an Olympic sponsor (rights fees, activation costs etc) do they represent value for money? (I doubt it.)

Richard Taylor, Managing Director, mediataylor - August 20, 2004

Being an Olympic venue is like putting global advertisment campaign. Global advertising is the best way to establish global branding.

Randy Lee - August 24, 2004

The debate over the Olympics is won and lost by media coverage. This year, as with every other, negative coverage has put a dampener on proceedings. As with so many other branding projects, this should be taken into consideration.

Until the media at large loses its grip over the public's opinions and actions, they are, by and large, the voice of the consumer.

James Freeman, Senior Partner, Freeman Christie - August 26, 2004

back to debate

RSS

| Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | FAQ