Though there was some concern going into this Olympics about sponsors associating their brands with China because of the country’s human rights record, the sense among marketing experts midway through the Games is that worry was overblown. The potential payoff, of breaking into a relatively untapped market of 1.3 billion consumers, lured in plenty of sponsors, and the lack of any major protests or problems at this Games so far seems to validate their decision. Games sponsorship has changed a lot over the past two decades. In addition to entering a more cluttered environment, sponsors put more emphasis on individual athletes to sell products rather than nationalism. While U.S. brands still dominate, international companies are becoming increasingly involved with the Games. Still, sponsors do run the risk of losing recognition to the various guerilla marketing endeavors for brands not officially associated with the Olympics. Early polling from these Games suggests that’s already been the case for a number of brands. Larry Vincent, Siegel+Gale’s group director of strategy for the Los Angeles office, talks to Media Life about branding, sponsorship and why China’s Olympics are a bit like the X Games.

 
What is the purpose of the Olympics for the China brand?
 
There’s been a lot of branding of countries, and the Olympics are usually a reinforcement of positioning. My sense is the Olympics for China prove it’s a country that’s on the world stage and knows how to run an Olympics, and that adds credibility to the brand.
 
But ironically it has sent another message that might not have intended, which is that it can be very controlling.
 

What is the risk for U.S. companies sponsoring the Olympics to be seen as supporting China's political policies?
 
I think it’s been a bit overblown. It’s always a risk when you sponsor something that’s beyond your control.

Younger brands deal with this with the X Games. There’s always the risk of something going on and then they’ll appear to be endorsing risky behavior.
 
You hear about it in the news, but you don’t see protests out there with companies that happened to get involved with the Games.

What are the benefits of such sponsorship, when it goes for such high prices?
 
You have to look at the audience and the kind of sponsorship.

A lot of sponsors looking at this year’s Games saw China as a country with a billion consumers, and they’re trying to leverage that market.
 
If you’re building brands through a lot of media, the exposure you can get through that Olympic window gives you an opportunity for a ton of media exposure. You know a lot of eyeballs are watching it, and you know it will give you a huge boost.
 

What are the best-known Olympic brands?
 
It’s changed quite a bit over the years, but I’d say companies we see time and time again are McDonald’s and Coca-Cola.
 
For many years IBM had a strong presence, but they’re not participating this year. Many people think Nike is associated with the Olympics when in fact they’re not. And for many years Kodak has had a large presence.
 

How has ambush marketing affected Olympic branding over recent years? What are the most glaring cases?
 
It’s increased the cost for sponsors because there’s only so much that can be policed. You can police those kinds of activities on and near the Olympic venues, but there’s a lot that marketers can still do.
 
In 1996 there was the ultimate example, when you had Nike Town in the middle of Atlanta, which confused people because there was an adidas logo nearby.

The impact of it is, if you’re going to sponsor these things you need to build into the plan ways for consumers to connect you with the Games.
 
During the Winter Games a while back, Sprint ran an ad that featured winter sports but had no reference to the Games, so people naturally associated Sprint with the Olympics without them really doing anything wrong.
 

You say the Olympics are a horrible place to debut new brands. Why?
 
If you’re a brand that people don’t know, whether it's the Olympics or the Super Bowl, it's risky. During the dot.com era we saw a lot of those ads during the Super Bowl.

If your brand is something people are familiar with, it’s more valuable. You have a lot attention on you, and you don’t have to educate people about who you are.
  
And why is it a better venue to reposition a brand?
 
It depends on your brand marketplace.
 
When you go to the Games it’s mostly sponsors that are there on-site, so in that sense it can be a good way to push your brand out with a new look and feel.
 
From a consumer perspective, a good ad campaign that’s being run repeatedly can be a way to start seeding an idea that something’s changed about your brand, but it requires very tight execution.
 

Which brands do you expect to do particularly well this Olympics? Will there be any that don't?
 
From the preliminary work I’ve seen it looks like McDonald’s will do very well. They have this global pipeline for looking for content, and the Olympics provide a high-value piece of content to drive that pipeline.
 
And my gut tells me adidas will do very well because of the sort of nationalistic approach it took with China.
 
But I haven’t seen enough to gauge who might not do well.
 

Why haven't we seen more international companies getting involved in Olympic sponsorship? Will we see more in the coming years?
 
I think historically you haven’t seen a lot, but you might at the local level. But to do it on a global basis the price tags have been too high without the promise of return.

But I do think we will see more international companies being involved in the future.