The selection of Boston as a bid city — and the improved chance of its success in being chosen as the host city — for the 2024 Summer Olympic Games creates unique opportunities for current and potential sponsors.
A lot has been made of the U.S. Olympic Committee’s continued efforts to improve relationships with the International Olympic Committee, whose 103 members make the host-city selection. The USOC is now seen as a contributing member of the Olympic community and less as the 800-pound gorilla with questionable manners and limited international tact.
This new and improved USOC is critical to the success of the Boston bid and highlights one of the main differences between Boston and its predecessors, New York 2012 and Chicago 2016. Namely, that this bid is less about the city and more about the USA. While some IOC members will want to know specifically what Boston can offer, the real question they will ask themselves is, “Is it time to bring the Games back to the U.S. market?”
While other countries consistently bring forward the same cities (Rome, Paris, Tokyo and Istanbul, for example), the U.S. has moved around its bid cities, putting out Atlanta, Salt Lake City, New York City, Chicago and now Boston as alternatives. It has become less about the city presented (the assumption is that all are capable or the USOC would not endorse them) and more about the political relationship between the USOC and the IOC. The city relationship is for seven years; the USOC relationship is forever.
 |
USOC Chairman Larry Probst and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh at the bid city announcement.
Photo by: GETTY IMAGES
|
There is no doubt Boston offers a strong backdrop for an Olympic Games. The city is steeped in history, and it has an enthusiastic sports fan base, proximity to a very large Eastern population and corporate base, and solid existing infrastructure. But it will fall as much on the shoulders of the USOC (and not the Boston organizing committee alone) to make a compelling argument that it is time to again select a U.S. market for this global spectacle. This has large implications for the sponsorship opportunity that the Boston bid creates. For the next 18-plus months (until the selection of the 2024 host city in the fall of 2017), Boston will be looking for corporate support to assist in paying for its private bid. (The United States is one of very few global nations that does not receive its Olympic funding, including bid-city funding, from the government.) Sponsorship support, in both the short and long term, is critical to this effort.
In the past, this has been seen as a local affair. Local businesses chip in because they see the longer-term benefit if the Games come to “their” city. When the U.S. hosted in Atlanta, it was local companies such as UPS, Home Depot and NationsBank (now Bank of America) that led the charge.
I would contend that 2024 will be a shift to a more national sponsorship platform. Both during the bid process and ultimately the host process (if Boston wins), there will be opportunities for companies to align with this effort, and that alignment should play from coast to coast. Commitment to engage with Boston creates a national platform for companies to align with the Olympic values, as well as with the efforts of both the Olympic Games and Team USA. This opens up a tremendous platform for sponsorship, with the inclusion of many brands that may not have been engaged with the Olympic movement before.
Keep in mind: The last companies that saw benefit from aligning with a U.S. host city saw their partnership end in 1996 for the Summer Games and 2002 for the Winter Games. For many companies, and certainly most CMOs, this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
In addition, this bid opens unique marketing opportunities for business-to-business companies. In the past, most marketers have seen Olympic sponsorship as a consumer platform for organizations such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola and Visa. However, a review of the roster of USOC sponsors shows the inclusion of GE, Dow, Deloitte and USG. These companies have come to understand the power of the Olympic platform in areas such as employee and customer engagement. A U.S. host city only heightens the understanding that this is a business opportunity first and foremost.
Think of the businesses in areas such as construction, infrastructure and technology, for example, that will affect the delivery of these Games. Areas such as hospitality are obviously increased when the U.S. hosts, but the seven years leading up to the Games create huge b-to-b and brand-building platforms.
Many nationally focused companies would be wise to look at the Boston bid as an opportunity to develop a strong marketing platform in the United States. These opportunities do not come along very often, and this is not the time to sit on the sideline and wait to see what happens.
This U.S. bid is a game changer.
Gordon Kane (victorysportsmarketing@gmail.com) has held management positions at the U.S. Olympic Committee, a U.S. host city and a U.S. bid city. He now consults for companies (including Deloitte and USG) on Olympic sponsorship opportunities.
