評論
打印
The risk is that if you mess up, you do so very publicly. G4S, a British-based security firm, was hoping that handling security for the games (which it, too, sponsors, though not at the top level) would gild its reputation. "If we can do it for the Olympics, we can do it for you," said Ian Horseman-Sewell, G4S's director of events, on June 21st. Shortly afterwards, the firm discovered that it couldn't do it for the Olympics, having failed to train anything like enough staff. G4S's share price did a passable imitation of an Olympic diver (see article).
贊助奧運的風險在于：如果你辦砸了，你就會在廣大公眾面前出洋相?？偛课挥谟谋０补?G4S 曾希望為奧運會處理安保工作能為其增光添彩（它也對奧運進行了贊助，盡管并未躋身頂級贊助商行列）。G4S 的項目主管 Ian Horseman-Sewell 在6月21日稱："如果我們能為奧運會做安保，我們也能為你做"。不久之后，該公司發現它培訓的職員不夠，無法為奧運提供安保。其后 G4S 的股價大幅跳水（見另文）。
Most top-level sponsors, such as McDonald's, Omega, Panasonic and Procter & Gamble, are not trying to prove their prowess. They are just trying to look noble and global by association in a way that wows and woos customers. How they do so reveals the brilliance of the IOC's stand against the "crass commercialism" of corporate ads and logos at the games. Unable to advertise inside, the sponsors must advertise outside, by way of posters and packaging and every other platform at their disposal. And to reap the benefit of their sponsorship, this advertising must be linked back to the Olympics: so every billboard and chocolate bar and television set carries the Olympic logo. It is hard to walk down a high street anywhere in the world without being reminded of the Olympics.In effect, the sponsors are paying to provide publicity for the Olympics. This is a fantastic deal for the IOC. Is it also good for the sponsors? "I don't know," admits the boss of one big sponsor.
如麥當勞、歐米茄、松下和寶潔等大多數頂級贊助商并未試圖去證明它們的高超商業技巧。它們只是試圖以讓顧客交口稱贊的方式來建立起貴族化和全球性的形象。它們的經營方式表明，國際奧委會在處理奧運會中的公司廣告和商標時采取了光輝立場，反對"唯利是圖"。由于無法在場內做廣告，贊助商只有通過海報、包裝以及其它可用的各種平臺從場外著手。而為了收回贊助的利益，這種廣告必須重新鏈接到奧運上來：于是每個廣告牌、每塊巧克力、每臺電視機都打上了奧運商標。走過每一條大街，幾乎都能讓人聯想到奧運。實際上，贊助商花錢為奧運做了宣傳。這筆交易讓國際奧委會大賺。贊助商也從中獲利了么？一家大贊助商的老板坦承："我不清楚。"
A study by Jonathan Jensen of Columbia College, Chicago and Anne Hsu of Relay Worldwide, a sports-marketing firm, has found that in general companies that sponsor generously tend to do well. They looked at the 51 American firms that spent more than $15m annually on sponsorship (mostly of sports) between 2005 and 2009. Net income at these firms grew faster than at S&P 500 firms in general (7.8% to 6.5% per year). The biggest sponsors did even better: the top 16, which spent on average $160m a year on sponsorship, saw net income grow by 22.1% annually.
芝加哥哥倫比亞大學（Columia College）的 Jonathan Jensen 和運動營銷公司 Relay Worldwide 的 Anne Hsu 所做的研究發現，總體來說，進行慷慨贊助的公司往往業績不錯。他們調查了51家在2005到2009年間平均每年進行1500萬美元以上贊助（多數用于運動行業）的美國公司。總體來說，這些公司的凈收入增長比標準普爾500家上市公司要快（前者為每年7.8%，后者為每年6.5%）。部分最大的贊助商業績更佳：每年贊助額在1.6億美元以上的前16家公司的凈收入年均增長了22.1%。
The authors do not claim that sponsorship makes businesses more profitable. Rather, big sponsors tend to be firms with brands that are already well-known. Lesser-known firms buy ads to explain to customers who they are. The likes of Coke and IBM back athletes to make consumers feel warmer about their brands. There is evidence that such backing can work, at least on a team-by-team level. Jorg Henseler of Radboud University has found that in the Netherlands sponsoring football teams makes brands more valuable. And even if there is no such direct effect from sponsoring the games, there is an indirect benefit: you raise ever further the costs of entering the global market. It is spending like this that makes competing with Coke hard, even when making fizzy drinks is easy.
筆者并非是指贊助讓企業盈利更多。相反，大贊助商往往都是已經擁有著名品牌的公司。知名度較低的公司通過做廣告來向顧客推銷自己。像可口可樂和 IBM 這種類型的公司通過贊助運動員來讓顧客更熱衷于自己的品牌。有證據表明這種支持確有成效，至少在贊助運動團隊時是這樣。拉德伯德大學（Radboud University）的 Jorg Henseler 發現，在荷蘭，贊助足球隊會讓品牌升值。即使贊助奧運會沒有此類直接效益，也會有一種間接效益：你抬高了進入全球市場的成本門檻。雖然現在制造碳酸飲料并不困難，但這種贊助開支讓別的公司很難同可口可樂競爭。
