Olympic Sponsors
By GreenMoo
@GreenMoo (11833)
August 5, 2012 2:25am CST
The sponsors of the London Olympics are currently receiving a lot of coverage, which of course is why they are sponsors. Two of the largest sponsors are Coco-Cola and McDonalds, which don't, to me at least, seem to be particularly appropriate sponsors for an event where the competitors need to be at the peak of fitness and health.
What do you think of the choices of Olympic sponsors? Do you think the Olympic committee considered their appropriateness to the games, or just grabbed the money?
Just for fun, can you think of sponsors who would be even more inappropriate than Coca-Cola or McDonalds?
4 responses
@sodambored (82)
• Canada
5 Aug 12
I think they just grabbed their money because they were capable of giving them a lot of money. Some more appropriate sponsors would be Everlast, Champion, Nike, Adidas, Puma, TKO, and many more.
@sodambored (82)
• Canada
5 Aug 12
Thank you! And yeah I think some sports wear companies were sponsoring some of the athletes.
@o0jopak0o (6394)
• Philippines
5 Aug 12
The biggest offers would always win in any events that needs sponsors. It is maybe a little bit inappropriate that coke, mcdonalds are not really known for being "sport" related but I think it is fine.
The one thing I am a little bit angered is that Mcdonalds has this monopoly on fries and other products during the Olympics. I don't know if coke has this monopoly but it is bit ironic that olympics stands for fair competition but not when it comes to food or sponsors.
@sedel1027 (17846)
• Cupertino, California
5 Aug 12
The Olympics has been sponsored by Coke for many years. I doubt that will change. I don't know if McDonalds is a new sponsor or not. I don't believe they are.
Here's the thing: the sponsors whose names are plastered everywhere are the ones who donate the most money. Unfortunately, companies like Coke & McDonalds that have been around for every, are known internationally, and a lot of people purchase goods from are going to be the people with the money to sponsor something like the Olympics.
The internationally known part is also really big. Here is the US we may think Walmart, Starbucks, Mercedes, or a company along those lines would be better sponsors. The problems: even though those products may be in other countries, they aren't known world wide. So a company that isn't known world wide, isn't going to spend big bucks sponsoring something like the Olympics - unless maybe they are held in their own country.
Honestly, I don't see Coke & Mc Donald's as being inappropriate. I am not sure who actually would be inappropriate as a sponsor. Sponsoring is about money and marketing.
@GreenMoo (11833)
•
5 Aug 12
Of course, everything you say about international recognition, big bucks and marketing is absolutely true.
There are many other sponsors who fit the international and big money criteria just as well. Acer for instance, Panasonic, Visa and Samsung. These don't have the negative health connotations that Coca-Cola and McDonalds do.
@p1kef1sh (45681)
•
5 Aug 12
As both companies are pretty much household names throughout the world now it does not surprise me that they wish to be part of a global activity. I find nothing in their products that even remotely suggestive of good health and I find there popularity fairly mystifying. Coke is too sugary and McDonald's foods fat and salt laden. Things that we love too much perhaps.. These are things that any athlete treats with great caution as should all other humans. I understand that the total value of sponsorship is less than £700 million. The Olympics have cost at least £9 billion. So I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Corporate sponsors have not even managed to find 10% of the overall costs and yet they seem to be getting a great deal more than 10% worth of publicity. I wouldn't have thought that sponsorship by food companies is appropriate and that one should look to organisations that engage properly and wholly with sport and endeavour. My view is that participating nations should pay on a sliding scale according to GDP. Of course the US and China would protest like mad.
@GreenMoo (11833)
•
5 Aug 12
I hadn't realised the insignificance of the sponsorship compared to the total cost before now. That's a piddling little percentage. GDP is a figure I'm not entirely sure I'd look to as a benchmark for a nation's contribution, although the idea of each country making a fair contribution is a sensible one. GDP and the actual wealth of a nation, as it relates to the people who live there, can be poles apart.
£9billion is an astronomical sum. The Olympics has high ideals and should pull countries together in healthy competition and striving to excellence but somewhere along the way that message has been diluted, making it a sum which I'm not sure can be justified.
In terms of coverage for the sponsors, most of that which I have seen has been unflattering! Coke and McDonalds knocking, generally. But I have not been following the Olympics on TV and am somewhat removed from the whole thing.