Like 30 million plus people, I've been watching a lot of Olympics the past few days. Which means I've seen a lot of commercials from the sponsors of the Games; I think I've seen that McDonald's ad touting chicken sandwiches for breakfast (ew) at least 50 times.
Two watchdog groups, Commercial Alert and Multinational Monitor, have released a study titled, "The Commercial Games." According to AdWeek, "The study is highly critical of the sponsorship and advertising policies of the International Olympic Committee and the various sports federations and national committees under its auspices…The groups argue that the marketing of junk foods, sodas, fast-food chains and alcoholic beverages should be eliminated from the Games. Their reasoning: such products conflict with the stated purpose of the Olympics, which they say is to 'celebrate healthful living.'…Promoting such products in the widely watched Olympics…is 'unhealthful,' and particularly inappropriate 'for an event with enormous appeal to children.'" The groups slam McDonald's and Coca-Cola the hardest, saying that both companies, "run businesses centered around unhealthy food," and suggest that, "The Olympics should not lend its name and aura to help promote more consumption of these unhealthy products."
In what could be the funniest bit of corporate protestation ever, McDonald's "objected to the study's labeling of its product as 'unhealthy,'" presumably because they now offer apple slices and stuff like that. (Don't worry; you can get "low-fat caramel dipping sauce" with them.) The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not accept ads from liquor companies, although beer and wine are OK. Not surprisingly, Commercial Alert and Multinational Monitor think the IOC should ban beer and wine ads as well.
The reason for all of these ads is, of course, money. According to Ad Week, there are 63 sponsors at this years' Games, which sounds like a lot, although it doesn’t say how that compares to previous years. The article quotes "brand consultant" Robert Passikoff as saying that 63 might be too many sponsors, but he defends the IOC's right to sell as many ads as they can: "The question is why should they cut back? They're making an awful lot of money on it. Why should anyone other than the consumers and the marketing folks be the arbiter of what's right and wrong? No research group should have the right to tell them who to do business with; who put them in charge?"
Is Passikoff right? Or should the IOC be more selective about whom they allow to sponsor the Olympics?
Source: AdWeek, Image: MSNBC
Read more:
Jon Stewart Tackles Olympic Controversies
