|
|
|
|
Using Brand to Shift the Conversation: a look at the Beijing and London Olympic Summer Games
a blog entry by Heidi L. Toboni
I was recently discussing focus and positioning in branding with a client. One of the most interesting recent examples of brand positioning was the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. If you remember, the media made a big deal about the Games as China’s “coming out party.” With the Chinese Olympic Committee’s display of modern hosting facilities, the lavish opening ceremonies (costing more than the GNP of most small countries), and the Chinese government’s overall nothing-too-small/nothing-unscripted approach, it was if the Games were a show to world that China is on-the-scene and can now play with the big boys. But friends in high places in Asian politics have assured me that the whole Big Show was not put on primarily for the world’s benefit: it was for the Chinese people. The message of the Chinese government was: Look what we can do. See how capable we are? Now, can you be proud and happy with us?
Whether or not you agree with that debatable point, the Chinese Olympic Committee certainly succeeded in throwing a successful and entertaining Games. But what’s most interesting to me from a branding perspective was the response by Great Britain following the opening ceremonies.
Britain will be hosting the Summer Games in London 2012, and its Olympics organizers were asked how they planned to “compete” with Beijing and the Big Show. Remember, this is Great Britain—the country with perhaps the least need in the world for a coming out party, and the one who’s royal family strategically turned down the invitation to attend the Beijing opening ceremonies. British organizers replied that they intended to bring some “perspective and balance” back to the Games. Should any country be spending an estimated $40 billion on a sporting event when the world is faced with urgent humanitarian, environmental, and economic crises? Their message and brand position: We don’t need to use a theatrical production to establish our legitimacy. We’re legitimate: we know it, our people know it, and the world knows it. And with that, they shifted the conversation from whether they could compete (or could afford to compete) to why they should even need to compete—and altered the world’s perspective as to what was really going on in Beijing. Sly. But then, what else should one expect from the country that has been setting the bar in international affairs, world diplomacy, strategic negotiations for over a thousand years?
I love and admire China’s rich culture and its warm-hearted people (some of whom count as friends from in my travels in Asia), and I appreciated their Beijing Games. My point, however, is that I can see similar situations occurring in the business world and can imagine two CEOs locking horns and how one might take a comparable strategic approach. The little guy (who’s actually the big guy) is faced with competition from another company’s heftier budget, flashy talk, and glitzy marketing. Yet when the little guy gets the attention of the marketplace, he or she makes the issue of competing in that other company’s style much less relevant by throwing into the ring the weight of their brand (i.e. trust, credibility, understanding of needs, a sense of proportion, etc.) and showing that to claim the high road, you have to walk it first. It’s like reminding you, the consumer, of the time when you bought that product with the flashy advertising and pretty packaging… but the product inside didn’t do what you paid for. Yeah, we've all had it happen to us—and we distrust that brand name now.
How the London 2012 Summer Games play out remains to be seen. For now, I find the contrast between the two countries’ Olympic approaches an interesting example of how brand image can frame or change a conversation.
See Branding, for more information on how HeLT can help your brands.
More SERVICES
|
|
|
